Delhi HC Grants Custody Parole to Neeraj Bawania for Wife’s Surgery Consent

June 30, 2025, 2:30 pm

The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed jailed gangster Neeraj Bawania custody parole for one day. He will visit his ailing wife in the ICU and sign the necessary documents for her surgery.

Custody Parole Set for July 1

Justice Manoj Jain granted the parole for July 1, from 10 AM to 4 PM. Bawania’s wife is admitted to Mehta Hospital’s ICU in Delhi’s Pandav Nagar. The court ruled that he can meet only his wife and her doctor—no one else.

Court Weighed Security Concerns

While granting parole, the court considered the prosecution's concerns. Authorities fear the risk of gang violence if Bawania is out. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Laksh Khanna, told the court that “he is a high-risk prisoner” and “may pose a danger to society or himself.” He also mentioned Bawania is a flight risk.

Defense Pushes for Bail, Then Agrees to Parole

Initially, Bawania had requested interim bail for six weeks to care for his wife. His lawyer, senior advocate N Hariharan, stated that no one else is available to take care of her or to sign for the surgery. Later, he agreed to seek just one-day custody parole.

Hariharan told the court, “Surgery is imminent,” and explained that Bawania’s wife has been in the ICU since the previous night. He also said Bawania had been in jail for 10 years, and the trial has faced delays.

Court Had Earlier Denied Bail

Earlier this year, the Delhi High Court rejected Bawania’s regular bail plea. The APP pointed out that the delay in trial had already been discussed in that order. He also noted Bawania’s criminal history—he is named in 28 cases.

Background of the Case

Neeraj Sehrawat, also known as Bawania, has been in custody since 2015. He faces charges in a case involving the murder of a rival gang member inside a jail van. The court acknowledged the severity of his past but made an exception due to his wife's critical condition.

Government May Bring Impeachment Motion Against Justice Yashwant Varma in Monsoon Session

May 28, 2025, 8:58 am

The Union government may introduce an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, according to Hindustan Times, which cited unnamed sources.

Cash Found at Judge’s Residence Sparked Action

Officials seized cash from Justice Varma’s residence in Delhi in March, which triggered the current discussion about possible removal.

Motion Requires Strong Political Support

To proceed, at least 50 Rajya Sabha members and 100 Lok Sabha members must support the impeachment motion.
Moreover, for the motion to pass, it needs a two-thirds majority in both Houses, which means the government must gain support from multiple parties.

Rare and Historic Move

If Parliament passes the motion, Justice Varma could become the first judge of a constitutional court to be removed through impeachment.
Therefore, this case would mark a historic moment in India's judicial and parliamentary history.

Process Likely to Begin from Both Houses

As per procedure, the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman are expected to initiate the impeachment process.

Other Key Issues in Monsoon Session

Besides this, the Monsoon Session is likely to cover other critical matters. Parliament will also discuss the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, both of which have raised national security concerns.

“Dog-Whistling in Law”: SC Rebukes Ashoka University Professor Over Facebook Post on Op Sindoor

May 21, 2025, 2:41 pm

Supreme Court of India on Wednesday granted interim bail to Ashoka University assistant professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, firmly rebuking him for a contentious social media message on India's Operation Sindoor. Mahmudabad uploaded the Facebook post amid heightened national sentiment following the Pahalgam terror attack and India’s military operation against Pakistani terror camps.

Supreme Court Takes a Stern View

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was not shy in words as it condemned the professor's remarks. "Everybody has a right to express free speech. But is it the time to talk of this much communal...? The country has faced a big challenge. Monsters came all the way and attacked our innocents. We were staying united. But at this juncture... why to gain cheap popularity on this occasion?" Justice Kant said, LiveLaw reported. The court termed Mahmudabad's post "dog whistling," a legal term that refers to coded or veiled language addressing specific groups. It condemned his choice of words, saying, "Although everybody has the right to freedom of expression, statements by Mahmudabad are what is called dog whistling in law." Granting bail, the Supreme Court imposed three major conditions: Mahmudabad should not pen or comment in public about the case, the Pahalgam attack, or Operation Sindoor; and he should hand over his passport. In addition, the Court also declined to stay the ongoing investigation and instead ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within 24 hours. The SIT will consist of senior IPS officers from outside Haryana and Delhi.

Ashoka University Reacts

Ashoka University hailed the interim bail, saying, "We are relieved and heartened by Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad being granted interim bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has provided great comfort to his family and all of us at Ashoka University." However, the episode highlights how intellectual voices are increasingly in the crosshairs, particularly at the time of sensitive national crises. With the ongoing SIT investigation, all eyes are on how the legal and academic fraternity will act in this high-profile case.

In Historic Move Supreme Court Publishes Judges’ Asset Declarations Online

May 6, 2025, 12:01 pm

The Supreme Court of India has taken a major step toward transparency. It has uploaded the asset declarations of its judges on its official website. This action follows a unanimous decision made by the full court.

Court Issues Official Release

In a public statement, the court said, “The full court of the Supreme Court of India has on April 1, 2025 decided that the statements of assets of the judges of this court shall be placed in the public domain by uploading the same on the website of this court.”

The court has already published the asset details of judges who have submitted their declarations. For others, the data will go online as soon as their submissions are received.

SC Explains Appointment Process

Alongside the asset details, the Supreme Court has shared the full process behind appointing judges to the High Courts and Supreme Court. This move aims to boost public understanding of judicial appointments.

The process involves several parties — the High Court Collegium, state governments, the Union of India, and the Supreme Court Collegium.

The court added, “The proposals approved by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointments as high court judges during the period from November 9, 2022 to May 5, 2025, including the names, high court, source -- whether from service or Bar, date of recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium, date of notification by the Department of Justice, date of appointment, special category (SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Woman) and whether the candidate is related to any sitting or retired High Court/Supreme Court judge, have also been uploaded on the Supreme Court website.”

CJI Sanjiv Khanna Declares Assets

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has disclosed his financial details. He holds ₹55.75 lakh in fixed deposits and savings, along with ₹1.06 crore in his Public Provident Fund (PPF) account.

He owns a two-bedroom flat in South Delhi and a four-bedroom apartment in the Commonwealth Games Village. Additionally, he has a 56% share in a four-bedroom flat in Gurugram, while his daughter owns the remaining 44%. He also holds a share in his ancestral home in Himachal Pradesh, which existed before the partition.

Justice Gavai Shares Property and Liabilities

Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai, who will become the next Chief Justice on May 14, has also disclosed his assets. He has ₹19.63 lakh in his bank accounts and ₹6.59 lakh in his PPF account.

Justice Gavai owns an inherited house in Amravati and other residential properties in Mumbai and Delhi. He also has inherited agricultural land in Amravati and Nagpur. His total liabilities are listed at ₹1.3 crore.

Justice BR Gavai Appointed 52nd Chief Justice of India, Oath on May 14

April 29, 2025, 9:27 pm

Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai has been named as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI). He will be sworn in as the new CJI on May 14, 2025, by President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan. Justice Gavai will replace the outgoing CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who will retire on May 13.

A Distinguished Legal Career of Gavai

Born on November 24, 1960, at Amravati, Maharashtra, Justice Gavai started his legal practice in 1985. He started practicing under the tutelage of Raja S. Bhonsale, ex Advocate General and High Court Judge, and later set up his independent practice at the Bombay High Court in 1987. He was made an additional judge of the Bombay High Court in 2003 and was made a permanent judge in 2005. He was promoted to the Supreme Court in May 2019. During his career, Justice Gavai has had a hand in some of the key Constitution Bench judgments. He was among the five-judge bench that allowed the abrogation of Article 370 that took away Jammu and Kashmir's special status. Gavai also was on the bench that decided to strike down the controversial scheme of electoral bonds for political party funding. He was also on the bench that upheld the Centre's 2016 demonetisation action by a 4:1 margin.

Historic Representation and Brief Tenure

Justice Gavai’s elevation is also notable for its social significance he will become the second Chief Justice of India from the Scheduled Caste community, following Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. His appointment marks an important milestone in the judiciary’s representation and inclusivity. His term, nonetheless, will be comparatively brief. Justice Gavai will retire on November 23, 2025, when he reaches the age of 65, the retirement age for a Supreme Court judge. The name of Justice Gavai was suggested by Justice Sanjiv Khanna in accordance with the convention of choosing the Chief Justice of India according to seniority. His elevation adds years of judicial experience and a legacy of historic judgments to India's highest judicial office.

Supreme Court Issues Notices to Netflix, Amazon Prime, & Others Over “Obscene” Content

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court of India on Monday sent notices to top streaming websites such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and others following a public interest litigation (PIL) which alleges that these websites are distributing "obscene" material. The Supreme Court has consented to hear the petition and requested the Centre to file its response to the current and proposed norms for digital media.

Government Admits Regulatory Oversight Needed

During the hearing, the government's representative Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that there are already some regulations in place for OTT platforms. At the same time, he said the government is considering new regulations to deal with the issues at hand. The Solicitor General highlighted the need to balance freedom of speech with regulation while expressing concerns regarding the nature of content on streaming platforms. The Centre's report provided serious issues regarding some of the content carried on OTT platforms. The government labeled such content not only as obscene but also "perverse," highlighting that although it could be for adults, controlling access to such content is a challenge. The government highlighted that ensuring that such material does not end up in unintended audiences' hands is a challenge.

Severe Remarks on Obscene Content Availability

The Solicitor General underscored the seriousness of the situation by stating, "Two men sitting together will not be able to watch" some of the material that is already available on OTT platforms. This statement refers to the extent of the material in question, and this adds to the concerns regarding its potential effect on viewers. The Supreme Court's notice and the Centre's approach indicate an increasing realization of the necessity to better regulate OTT platforms. With streaming services becoming a part of everyday entertainment, the necessity for clearer guidelines to strike a balance between freedom of expression and content moderation is becoming ever more essential.

Ramdev Promises Delhi HC to Remove ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Remarks from Online Platforms

April 22, 2025, 2:00 pm

Yoga mentor Baba Ramdev has told the Delhi High Court that he will remove all videos and social media posts containing his controversial “Sharbat Jihad” remark. This assurance was made in response to a lawsuit filed by Hamdard, the makers of the well-known drink Rooh Afza.

Controversial Comment Sparks Outrage

The dispute began when Ramdev, in a promotional video, allegedly claimed that Hamdard was using its profits to build mosques and madrasas. He referred to Rooh Afza as part of a supposed “sharbat jihad.” Hamdard strongly objected, accusing Ramdev of trying to spread communal tension and damage their brand.

Court Expresses Disapproval

Justice Amit Bansal, who presided over the hearing, reacted sharply to the remark. He said, “When I saw this ad, I could not believe my ears and eyes.” The court criticized the communal tone of the video.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Ramdev and Patanjali, informed the court that the videos would be taken down.

Court Demands Written Commitment

Despite the assurance, the court asked Ramdev to file an affidavit. He must confirm in writing that he will not make such statements again. Justice Bansal remarked, “He can keep these thoughts in his mind but should not express them.” The court has scheduled the next hearing for May 1.

Rooh Afza Remarks Under Scrutiny

The controversy dates back to April 3, when Ramdev, while endorsing Patanjali’s Gulaab Sharbat, criticised Rooh Afza. He accused Hamdard of redirecting its revenue toward religious activities, specifically the construction of mosques and madrasas. He called this alleged campaign “sharbat jihad.” Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sandeep Sethi represented Hamdard. They argued that Ramdev’s remarks aimed to tarnish their image and incite religious bias.

Broader Concerns Over Communal Speech

The case has raised serious concerns about the use of religiously divisive language in public promotions. The court’s intervention signals a firm stance against rhetoric that threatens social harmony.

Waqf Law Changes Suspended for Now – Is This Just the Calm Before the Storm?

April 17, 2025, 4:36 pm

The government promised the Supreme Court on Thursday that there will be no new Waqf board appointments and no alteration to the status of properties asserted by Waqf boards until a hearing of challenges to recent laws changing the management of Muslim charity properties. This assurance was given while there was increased concern and protests all over India over the amended Waqf laws, more so the controversial 'waqf by user' provision, and the membership of Waqf boards.

Waqf by User Provision Under the Microscope

During the hearing, the Supreme Court was informed that current Waqfs, including those asserted under the 'waqf by user' provision, would not be altered. This provision enables Waqf boards to acquire properties that have been utilized by Muslims for religious or charitable causes, even if there is no formal document. The court had questioned this provision in its earlier hearing, stating, "We are not saying all 'waqf by user' is wrong. But there is concern." This has been a cause for concern as it raises the possibility of abuse of the provision, which has led to widespread criticism and court challenges. The court stressed that they would need to conduct an extensive review of how this provision affects properties and individuals who claim them through Waqf laws.

Government's Response

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, sought a week to reply to the objections over the amendments to the Waqf laws. The government assured that in the interim period, it would not make any appointments under Sections 9 and 14 of the new law. The two sections restrict the Muslim members on the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf boards to only eight and four, respectively, out of 22 and 11 overall members. The government's promise that no appointments would be made was a short-term measure until the next hearing. The new provisions have been criticized, especially by Muslim community leaders and opposition parties. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna posed an important question during the hearing, inquiring from the Solicitor General if the government would permit Muslims to be included in Hindu endowment boards as well.

Protests Across India Over Law Amendments

The amendments to the Waqf laws have also led to protests throughout the nation, with most critics terming the amendments discriminatory and unfair. In West Bengal, clashes turned violent and resulted in the deaths of three people, further fueling tensions between the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the opposition BJP. The TMC has pledged not to carry out the changes in the state, accusing the BJP of engaging in "appeasement politics" ahead of elections next year. The protests have drawn mass attention towards the amendments, with religious organizations and opposition parties filing petitions challenging them. More specifically, non-Muslims' inclusion in Waqf boards has been contentious. The provision, according to its critics, intrudes on Muslim institutions' independence and contradicts the values of religious freedom and representation.

Court's Focus and Future Hearings

The Supreme Court, in its recent hearing, chose to address only five of the numerous writ petitions that were filed against the amendments to the Waqf laws. "It is not possible to consider 100 or 200 (petitions)," Chief Justice Khanna said, and added that the remaining petitions would be considered as disposed of. Petitioners will get five days' time to respond to the government's submissions after the government has filed its reply. The court has made it clear that it will not overstep into the domain of the legislature, emphasizing the importance of the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution. However, it has agreed to hear the petitioners who argue that the changes to the Waqf laws infringe upon fundamental rights, including the right to equality and the right to practice religion freely.

Political and Religious Opposition to Waqf Law Changes

Opposition to the new Waqf laws has been across the board, with opposition political parties and religious groups moving against the amendments. Signatories to the petition include opposition party leaders such as Congress, AAP, DMK, and CPI, besides Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's JDU, which is an ally of the BJP. The JDU challenge is notable since Bihar, where there are many Muslims, will be going in for an assembly election this year. Religious bodies like Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board have also objected to the new laws. Some of the petitioners have demanded cancellation of the law while others have demanded a temporary ban on its implementation.

Supreme Court Asks Centre: “Will You Allow Muslims on Hindu Endowment Boards?”

April 16, 2025, 6:37 pm

In a dramatic turn of events, the Supreme Court on Wednesday raised sharp questions to the Centre during the hearing of a group of 73 petitions against the Waqf Amendment Act. The bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and consisting of Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan was concerned about many contentious provisions of the legislation, chiefly the recognition of 'Waqf by user' and the addition of non-Muslims to the Central Waqf Council.

Two Central Questions Agitated by the Bench of Supreme Court

Right from the beginning of the hearing, Chief Justice Khanna emphasised two core questions: whether the case should be referred to a high court and what particular constitutional arguments would be urged by the petitioners. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, said, "Several provisions of the new law infringe Article 26 of the Constitution, which promises the right to administer religious affairs." Sibal was especially critical of the powers conferred on the Collector by the new law, saying, "The Collector is a part of the government and if he plays the role of a judge, it is unconstitutional."

'Waqf by User' Provision Under Scanner

Sibal also highlighted the provision for 'Waqf by user', where a property could be regarded as Waqf on the basis of its long religious or charitable usage, even if there is no documentation. He maintained that the new legislation goes against this fundamental principle by excluding disputed or government land. "The issue is, if a waqf was established 3,000 years ago, they will demand the deed," he said. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi further pointed out that almost 4 lakh among 8 lakh Waqf properties come in the category of 'Waqf by user'. At this point, Chief Justice Khanna observed, "We are informed Delhi High Court stands on Waqf land. We do not say everything waqf by the user is bad, but there is concern." Singhvi explained that the petitioners are not asking for the invalidation of the whole Act but are seeking a stay on certain provisions.

Centre Defends the Act; Supreme Court Presses for Clarity

Standing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of the law, saying that it was passed after thorough debates in Parliament and vetted by a joint parliamentary committee. But the Chief Justice probed deeper into the 'Waqf by user' provision, asking, "Are you saying that if a 'Waqf by user' was created by a (Supreme Court) order or otherwise, today it is void?" He pointed out that the majority of the mosques and Waqf institutions are traceable to the 13th to the 15th centuries, and hence, giving formal documentation is virtually impossible. "If you undo it, then it will be a problem," he warned. The bench also questioned the law's inclusion of non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council. "Mr Mehta, are you saying you would permit Muslims on Hindu endowment boards? Say it loud," the Chief Justice said.

Concerns Over Violence and Public Unrest

The Chief Justice spoke about incidents of violence in connection with the new law and stated it was "very disturbing." When Mehta opined that protests were a bid to "pressurise the system," Sibal retorted, "It is not known who is pressuring." The Chief Justice emphasised that "positive points in the law must be highlighted," but also warned against abuse and premature rejection of genuine waqf claims. The Supreme Court will resume hearing the case tomorrow, with hopes that it may establish significant precedents on religious rights, property law, and the role of secular government in matters of faith.

UK Supreme Court Rules ‘Woman’ Means Biological Female, Igniting Gender Identity Row

April 16, 2025, 4:44 pm

In a historic ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the Equality Act 2010 legal definition of "woman" refers to a biological woman and excludes transgender women from this category for the purposes of gender-based rights and representation. Delivering the unanimous ruling, Justice Patrick Hodge said the terms "woman" and "sex" within the legislation needed to be defined on the basis of biological factors. "The unanimous ruling of this court is that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 are references to a biological woman and biological sex," he said. The ruling was precipitated by a judicial review of a 2018 Scottish Act requiring public body boards to have at least 50% female members an Act which defined "women" and included transgender women. The court ruled that construing "sex" as certificated gender, and not biological sex, would result in contradictions within the protection of the law and undermine its coherence. Justice Hodge explained, however, that the decision does not take away the rights of transgender people. He stressed that transgender people are still covered by the law under the feature of gender reassignment and are protected against direct and indirect discrimination, as well as harassment. The court emphasized that the Equality Act was to offer protections based on defined group attributes, such as sex and gender reassignment, and that broadening the definitions might invalidate those group protections. For Women Scotland, a women's rights advocacy organization, hailed the ruling as a major triumph. "Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women," read a statement from the organization, congratulating the court for vindicating their long-standing position.

Article 26 Takes Centre Stage on Day 1 of SC’s Waqf Act Hearing — Here’s Why

April 16, 2025, 4:09 pm

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution took center stage on Wednesday's Supreme Court hearing as the bench heard several petitions questioning the constitutional legitimacy of the Waqf Amendment Act. Senior counsel and Congress leader Kapil Sibal, representing Jamiat Ulema-E-Hind, referred to Article 26 in support of his argument that the Act interferes with the inherent religious practices of Muslims. "Let me broadly address what the challenge is about. Through a parliamentary legislation, what is sought to be done is to intervene in an essential and integral part of a faith. I refer to article 26 and many provisions of the act violate article 26," Sibal informed the bench.

'Who Is the State to Decide?'Sibal Questions Provisions

Sibal recited particular sections of the Act that he alleged violate religious autonomy, especially about inheritance and the composition of boards. "Who is the state to tell us how inheritance will be in my religion?" he questioned, disputing the state's intervention in the regulation of religious inheritance through the Waqf Act. He also expressed concerns regarding the modified law permitting non-Muslims to be included in Waqf Boards, terming it a basic violation. "Now, the Waqf council and boards. Only muslims had been part of such boards. Now, even Hindus can be a part. This is a direct usurpation of fundamental rights by parliamentary enactment," he claimed.

CJI Counters with Secular Interpretation

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna replied by pointing out that there are similar legislative schemes for Hindus and stated that Article 26 does not preclude Parliament from enacting laws based on their secular ideologies that affect religious communities. "But in Hindus it does happen. So, Parliament has enacted a law for Muslims. Maybe, not like of the Hindus. Article 26 will not bar the enactment of law in this case. Article 26 is universal and it is secular in the fashion that it applies to all," the CJI said. However, Sibal countered by arguing that in Islam, inheritance laws become effective only after the death of the person and, therefore, should be left undisturbed by state interference.

Bench Clarifies Article 26's Scope

Moreover, Justice KV Viswanathan, who was among the three-member bench, elaborated that Article 26, therefore, needed to be cautiously interpreted. "Wordings of Article 26 regarding administering etc cannot be confused with essential religious practices," he added. Article 26 of the Constitution, therefore, guarantees that any religious denomination shall have the right to carry on its religious affairs, establish institutions, and administer property — all subject, however, to considerations of public order, morality, and health. As the legal battle unfolds, the court will be required to establish whether the amended Waqf Act oversteps the constitutional threshold set by Article 26 or only regulates it in a secular framework.

‘Restore 100 Acres or Face Jail’: Supreme Court Warns Telangana Government over Forest Wipeout

April 16, 2025, 3:27 pm

In a major environmental intervention, the Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly condemned the Telangana government for illegal deforestation of almost 100 acres of forest land in Hyderabad's Kancha Gachibowli area, near the Hyderabad Central University (HCU) campus. The top court ordered immediate restoration work and threatened punitive action, including imprisonment for senior officials, if the violations persisted.

Bulldozers, Forest Loss, and Wildlife Disturbance

A bench headed by Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was deeply concerned about the indiscriminate felling of forest cover allegedly done during holidays, without obtaining compulsory permissions. "We are only concerned with presence of bulldozers and the erasing of forest spread over 100 acres. If you wanted to build something... you should have taken required permission," the bench noted. The court gave special consideration to footage of traumatized animals running away from the deforested area. "herbivorous animals running to seek shelter... bitten by stray dogs," the bench pointed out, underlining the damage to the environment inflicted by the unauthorized activity.

Court Demands Animal Protection, Threatens Jail for Officials

Judges asked for explanations of reports that the state had "self-exempted" animals from protected species lists and ordered the state's wildlife warden to immediately ensure the safety of the displaced animals. Stressing accountability, the court reiterated that unless the state government submitted a tangible plan to restore the cleared land, senior officials—beginning with the Chief Secretary—could be sent to prison. "If you want to save your Chief Secretary... tell us how you will restore those 100 acres. Come up with a plan... otherwise we don't know how many of your officers will go to temporary (jail)," Justice Gavai told the government. The court cautioned against any efforts to resume the clearance work, emphasizing its previous April 3 order prohibiting all activity except measures taken to safeguard remaining trees. "If you try to oppose restoration (of deforested land), then temporary prison for your officers. In the meantime, not a single tree will be felled," it added.

Legal Violations and Government Response Over Forest Loss

The court was shocked that the state went overboard with procedures, quoting that "even governments come to court for (permission to) cut trees." The bench also reminded it of a 1996 landmark judgment ordering state governments to prepare guidelines for tree felling, ensure wildlife preservation, and ensure ecological balance. The disputed land adjoins the Hyderabad Central University and has been the focal point of protests by students and environmentalists. The petitioners, aided by the NGO Vata Foundation, requested the court to accord the land forest status and declare it a national park under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Telangana government, conceded that “there may be some errors” in the process but maintained that the actions were “bonafide.” However, the court dismissed these arguments, asserting, “We are not concerned with all this. We are only concerned with the protection of the environment. Ensure displaced animals are safe. We only want to hear how 100 acres of forest land will be restored.”

Political Undertones

The plan to redevelop nearly 400 acres near the university, proposed by the Congress-led state government, has raised political heat. The Telangana government has made it clear that the HCU land is not touched and blamed opposition parties, especially the BRS and BJP, for making false propaganda for political mileage. The Supreme Court fixed the next hearing on the issue for May 15.

Supreme Court Sets Deadline for Presidential Decision on Bills

April 12, 2025, 2:45 pm

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has instructed the President to make a decision on bills referred by governors within three months. The decision came after the Court overruled the Tamil Nadu Governor’s refusal to assent to pending bills, setting a significant precedent.

Court's Ruling on Presidential Powers

Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, who delivered the verdict, clarified that the President's actions under Article 201 are open to judicial review. The Court emphasized that while the Constitution doesn’t specify a timeline, the President must decide within a reasonable time.

The Court emphasized that the President cannot hold onto a bill indefinitely. “The position of law is settled that even where no time-limit is prescribed for the exercise of any power under a statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time,” it stated. Thus, the President’s decision under Article 201 cannot bypass this basic legal principle.

Three-Month Deadline Set

The bench then specified that the President must decide within three months of receiving a bill from the governor. If the President fails to act within this period, the reasons for the delay must be recorded and communicated to the relevant state.

Judicial Intervention in Case of Delay

The Court also clarified that if the President does not act within the prescribed period, affected states can approach the courts for relief. In cases where the constitutionality of a bill is in question, the Court stated that the executive should not intervene. Instead, such issues should be referred to the Supreme Court for review under Article 143.

Legal Precedent Set in Tamil Nadu Case

The ruling followed the Tamil Nadu Governor's decision to withhold assent to 10 bills passed by the DMK government. By setting deadlines for governors to act on bills, the Court has opened the door for judicial review in cases of inaction.

The Court concluded, “We have no qualms in stating that the hands of the executive are tied when engaging with purely legal issues in a bill and only the constitutional courts have the prerogative to study and provide recommendations as regards the constitutionality of a bill.”

Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra? SC Condemns His ‘Insensitive’ Ruling on Attempt to Rape

March 26, 2025, 5:04 pm

The Supreme Court has severely indicted controversial judgment by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra on March 17 on the definition of attempting to rape, terming it "insensitive" and "inhuman". Not only did the apex court stay the ruling, but the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court has also been directed to take adequate action against him. The judgment had ruled that actions like cupping breasts or snapping the string of a pyjama were not tantamount to attempts at rape, a ruling that had outraged the entire country and was put under legal scanner.

Supreme Court Condemns the Judgment

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih strongly indicted Justice Mishra's reasoning as a flagrant disregard of judicial norms. "It’s very serious and exhibits complete lack of sensitivity on the part of the judge… We are sorry to use such harsh words against a constitutional court judge, but this is one of those cases," the bench noted. The Supreme Court pointed out that the judgment was not a hasty order but was delivered four months after being reserved in November 2023, showing careful consideration by the judge. "We take strong exception to paragraphs 21, 22, and 26 of the judgment, which depict a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment. It is also not that the judgment was delivered on the spur of the moment—it was reserved in November and delivered four months later. It is thus clear that the judge applied his mind and authored this judgment," the court explained. The case landed in the Supreme Court after 'We the Women of India,' a rights group, moved the top court against the high court ruling.

What Was the Decison of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra?

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra delivered the verdict while granting the accused's criminal revision appeal. The high court had first ordered the trial of the accused under Section 354-B of the IPC (assault or criminal force with intent to disrobe) and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault). The case goes as far back as November 10, 2021, when an 11-year-old girl was home on a motorcycle by the accused. Her father, trusting them, let her go. But on their way, the three accused stopped and sexually assaulted her. The accused, the prosecution alleged, touched her breasts, tore the string of her pyjamas, and tried to push her under a culvert in Uttar Pradesh's Kasganj. They ran away when onlookers came between them, leaving the girl behind. Despite these allegations, Justice Mishra decided that the incident "hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape." "The allegations levelled against the accused, Pawan and Akash, and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape in the case. To bring out a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation," said the judgment. The judge also rationalized his position, contending that the accused did not take further steps that would have established an intent to rape.

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra: Background and Career

Justice Mishra has been a part of the judiciary for a long time. He acquired a law degree in 1985 and a post-graduation in 1987. He entered the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service as a Munsif in 1990 and subsequently got promoted to the higher judicial service in 2005. Over the years, he served as district and sessions judge in Baghpat and Aligarh, held key positions such as director of the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), and later served as district and sessions judge, Lucknow. He was elevated to the Allahabad High Court as an additional judge on August 15, 2022, and was sworn in as a permanent judge on September 25, 2023.

Public Outrage and Legal Ramifications

The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights growing concerns over judicial sensitivity in sexual assault cases. Legal experts and activists have called for stricter judicial accountability, ensuring judgments align with established legal precedents and victims' rights. As the drama plays out, all eyes are fixed on the Allahabad High Court's reaction to the Supreme Court's order for Justice Mishra. The case is a powerful reminder of the judiciary's task of ensuring justice, particularly in women and children's crimes.

SC Stays Allahabad HC’s ‘Grabbing Breasts Not Rape’ Order, Calls Insensitive

March 26, 2025, 11:44 am

The Supreme Court has stayed the Allahabad High Court’s controversial judgment, which stated that actions like grabbing a woman’s breasts or pulling the string of her pyjamas do not qualify as an attempt to rape. The top court took action after the organization ‘We the Women of India’ raised concerns.

Court Takes Immediate Action

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih criticized the ruling. They said it showed a "total lack of sensitivity" from the high court judge. The Supreme Court noted that the judgment was not made in haste. The judge delivered it four months after reserving the decision, which showed deliberate thought.

Observations Called "Inhuman"

The Supreme Court usually avoids granting a stay at this stage. However, in this case, it found the observations in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 unacceptable. The bench stated these remarks were "unknown to the canons of law" and showed an "inhuman approach." Therefore, it stayed those observations.

Ensuring Sensitivity in Sexual Assault Cases

This decision highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring sensitivity in cases of sexual violence. It also sets an important precedent for future judgments

Cash Recovery at Justice Yashwant Varma’s Home Sparks Investigation

March 22, 2025, 12:35 pm

A fire at Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma’s residence led to an unexpected discovery. Firefighters found a large sum of cash while extinguishing the blaze. They immediately informed the authorities, triggering a nationwide debate. Justice Varma was reportedly out of town when the incident occurred. His family had called the fire brigade and the police for help.

The discovery of a large stash of cash at Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence has revived interest in the 2018 Simbhaoli Sugar Mill fraud case. This financial scandal had faded from public attention, but now, Justice Varma—who had maintained a spotless 22-year career—faces scrutiny after authorities reportedly found the cash following a fire at his official residence.

Fresh Questions About Financial Dealings

This incident has raised concerns about his financial history, especially his past ties to Simbhaoli Sugars Limited. The company allegedly orchestrated a multi-crore banking fraud. According to India Today that the CBI registered an FIR against 12 individuals, listing Yashwant Varma as the tenth accused. He served as a Non-Executive Director of the company. Despite serious allegations, the case stalled, and authorities took no legal action against him or others involved.

The 2018 Simbhaoli Sugar Mill Fraud

The fraud case began in February 2018 when the CBI launched an investigation based on a complaint from the Oriental Bank of Commerce. The bank accused Simbhaoli Sugars of misusing a ₹97.85 crore loan meant for farmers. Instead of reaching its intended recipients, the funds were allegedly diverted for other purposes. By May 2015, officials had already flagged the case as a ‘suspected fraud’ and reported it to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

Probe Halted, Then Shut Down

In February 2024, a court ordered the CBI to resume its stalled investigation. However, before any progress could be made, the Supreme Court overturned this directive. The ruling led to the immediate closure of the CBI’s Preliminary Enquiry (PE), shutting down any further probe into Simbhaoli Sugars and its directors.

Supreme Court Orders Urgent Probe

The local police documented the cash recovery and alerted senior officials. The matter soon reached Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. He quickly convened a collegium meeting to assess the situation. The Supreme Court directed the Delhi High Court Chief Justice to submit a detailed probe report. Sources confirmed that the report has been submitted for review.

Decision on Justice Varma’s Future

The Supreme Court follows a strict in-house procedure to handle allegations against judges. If the Delhi HC report clears Justice Varma, the case may be closed. However, if he faces indictment, the CJI-led collegium can ask for his resignation. If he refuses to step down, the CJI may form a three-member inquiry panel. This panel would include a sitting Supreme Court judge and two high court chief justices. The CJI can then request the central government to initiate impeachment under Article 218.

Impeachment Process Explained

A sitting judge can only be removed through a parliamentary motion. The process follows Article 124 for Supreme Court judges and Article 218 for high court judges. Parliament must find the judge guilty of ‘proven misbehavior or incapacity’ before removal.

Justice Varma’s Transfer Unrelated

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court clarified that Justice Varma’s proposed transfer to the Allahabad High Court is separate from the cash recovery probe. The collegium had reviewed his transfer on March 20, 2025. It had also consulted other Supreme Court and high court judges. The final decision on his transfer will follow after examining all responses. Now, the recent cash recovery at Justice Varma’s residence has reignited concerns. His financial background and alleged role in the Simbhaoli Sugars case are once again under intense public and legal scrutiny. The investigation into the cash recovery remains ongoing. The Supreme Court collegium will determine the next steps based on the probe findings.

Who Is Justice Yashwant Varma? A High Court Judge Who Didn’t Expect Firefighters to Find More Than Flames

March 21, 2025, 7:01 pm

A huge row has broken out in the national capital following the detection of a huge amount of unaccounted money at the Delhi residence of Justice Yashwant Varma during the Holi weekend. The event has set off a legal and political firestorm, and the Supreme Court Collegium has quickly responded by suggesting his transfer to the Allahabad High Court.

Who Is Justice Yashwant Varma?

Justice Yashwant Varma has been a part of India's judicial system for several decades. Born on January 6, 1969, in Allahabad (now Prayagraj), Uttar Pradesh, he finished his undergraduate degree in Commerce (B Com Honours) from Hansraj College, Delhi University. He went on to study law at Rewa University in Madhya Pradesh. Enrolling as an advocate in the Allahabad High Court in August 1992, he developed a specialization in constitutional law, company regulations, taxation, and labor litigations. He was transferred and became an Additional Judge in Allahabad High Court in October 2014 and a permanent judge in February 2016. In October 2021, he was shifted to the Delhi High Court. Prior to his judicial posting, Justice Varma was Special Counsel for the Allahabad High Court between 2006 and subsequent Chief Standing Counsel for the state.

The Controversy That Rocked the Judiciary

The controversy was initiated when fire fighters, answering a blaze at the home of Justice Varma, found heaps of unexplained cash. The incident rocked the legal fraternity and necessitated serious discussions within the judiciary. The CJI Sanjiv Khanna, according to sources, perceived the scenario as injurious to the credibility of the judiciary. As such, the Supreme Court Collegium immediately recommended Justice Varma's re-transfer to the Allahabad High Court. Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya recognized the seriousness of the issue in response to objections made by senior advocate Arun Bhardwaj. "Today's incident has pained many of us. Please take some steps on the administrative side so these incidents do not happen in future and the judicial system is maintained..." Bhardwaj stated. Justice Upadhyaya concurred, stating, "Yes, everyone has been shaken and demoralised."

Demands for Judicial Appointments Transparency

The revelation has once again fuelled controversies surrounding judicial transparency and the selection process. Furthermore, Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal commented on the matter, strongly urging drastic changes without delay. "The issue of corruption within the judiciary is very serious... this is not something articulated by senior councils and lawyers for the first time. It has been going on for years," Sibal said. He also added, "The appointment process should be more transparent and carefully done... Corruption is a very serious issue and, despite what Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said, corruption has increased..." So far, Justice Varma has not made any statement on the allegations. His court officials have informed news agency PTI that he is "on leave."

The Road Ahead for the Judiciary

The legal fraternity is now waiting to see how things play out in the controversy. The judiciary is under increasing pressure to respond to questions about corruption and transparency, as legal experts and political figures are demanding tighter checks in judicial appointments and behavior. This case is undoubtedly likely to have a significant and lasting impact on judicial accountability in India. Moreover, it carries far-reaching implications for future cases wherever the nation's legal system is involved.

Taxpayer Wins ITAT Case Over Non-Resident Status, Foreign Income Exempt

March 15, 2025, 9:53 am

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai has ruled in favor of an individual who claimed non-resident status for tax purposes. The taxpayer, M Gulati, spent 210 days abroad for work and job search, and the tribunal emphasized that tax residency must be determined based solely on the number of days spent in India.

Tax Department’s Argument Rejected

Gulati did not report his foreign income of Rs 1.2 crore for the financial year 2015-16, arguing that he stayed in India for less than 182 days. However, the Income-tax department contested this, claiming that 28 of the 210 days were spent searching for a job and should not count. Based on this, officials treated him as a tax resident and taxed his global income.

ITAT Clarifies Employment Purpose Rule

The ITAT dismissed this argument, affirming that job search days qualify under the ‘purpose of employment’ clause in the Income-tax Act. The tribunal referred to Explanation 1 of Section 6(1), which states that individuals leaving India for employment are considered tax residents only if they stay in India for 182 days or more.

Tax Officer’s Decision Overturned

The tax officer had recalculated Gulati’s overseas stay, excluding 28 days, and concluded that he spent more than 182 days in India. As a result, the officer taxed his foreign salary of Rs 86.2 lakh and interest income of Rs 2.8 lakh. The Appellate Commissioner upheld this view, citing Gulati’s unemployment during the job search period. However, ITAT overruled both decisions, stating that tax residency should be based only on the total days spent in India.

Impact of the Ruling

This decision provides relief to individuals traveling abroad for job searches before securing employment. Under tax laws, non-residents must pay tax only on income sourced in India, such as rent or bank interest, but not on foreign earnings.

Residency Rules Have Changed

From the financial year 2020-21, the residency threshold has been lowered to 120 days for those earning over Rs 15 lakh in India. However, during the assessment year 2016-17, the 182-day rule applied. The ITAT’s ruling sets a significant precedent for determining the tax status of individuals who combine job searches with employment abroad.

Sajjan Kumar Convicted in 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case Over Father-Son Killings

February 12, 2025, 4:03 pm

A Delhi court on Wednesday convicted former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar for his role in the killings of two Sikh men in Delhi’s Saraswati Vihar on November 1, 1984, during the anti-Sikh riots. The court will consider the quantum of the sentence on February 18.

Sajjan Kumar Found Guilty in 1984 Riots Case

The Special Investigation Team (SIT), which investigated the case, alleged that Kumar, who was then the Congress MP for Outer Delhi, led a mob that burned alive Jaswant Singh and his son Tarundeep Singh. The prosecution also accused him of orchestrating the destruction and looting of their houses. The SIT was represented in the court by Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat. Kumar’s defense team, including advocates Anil Kumar Sharma, Anuj Sharma, and Apoorva Sharma, argued that the complainants—Jaswant Singh’s wife and Tarundeep Singh’s mother—only came forward as eyewitnesses after a delay of seven years, making their testimonies unreliable. Nevertheless, they were provided by senior advocate H S Phoolka and advocates Kamna Vohra and Gurbaksh Singh, who maintained the veracity of their allegations.

Background of the 1984 Riots

The 1984 anti-Sikh riots are triggered throughout Delhi and part of India out of a reaction to the killing of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. Her murder was revenge for having ordered the Army to attack the Golden Temple in Amritsar in June 1984 to eradicate the militants. The rioting caused a generalized outbreak of violence and caused thousands of casualties and serious property damage. According to the FIR in this case, the FIR was lodged in 1991 based on an affidavit [given by] the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission on 9 September 1985. The Commission was constituted in 1985 by the Hon'ble Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to inquire into the violence the organized nature of the violence in Delhi and in other affected regions, Bokaro, Chas, and Kanpur, and recommend preventive measures. On 4th December 2021, the Court of Special Judge M K Nagpal on Rouse Avenue framed the charge against Kumar for murder, rioting/killing with a deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, and attempted culpable homicide.

Kumar Already Serving Life Sentence in 1984 Riot Cases

Currently, Sajjan Kumar is lodged in Tihar Jail, serving a life sentence handed down by the Delhi High Court in 2018 for his role in the killings of five Sikhs in Raj Nagar Part I, Palam Colony, on November 1-2, 1984. He was also sentenced for inciting the burning of gurdwara in Raj Nagar Part II. In September 2023, Kumar was found not guilty in a murder case against the killing of 7 Sikhs in Sultanpuri during the riots. But, a counter allegation also in a new case against him is still there in the Rouse Avenue Court. Secondly, two appeals are pending in the Delhi High Court for his acquittal and another before the Supreme Court for his conviction. Kumar's sentence will be decided by the Delhi court on 18 February. This belief is an addition to the long-drawn legal process to deliver justice to the victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh Riots.

‘Don’t Delete Data’: SC Warns Poll Body Over EVM Petition

February 11, 2025, 5:55 pm

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought clarity on the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) after elections, following a petition requesting that data from the machines not be erased even after the counting process is completed. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna directed that, for now, no data should be deleted from EVMs, nor should any new data be reloaded. The Election Commission has been asked to provide details on the procedure for burning EVM memory and microcontrollers post-election.

SC Slams Assam: ‘Waiting for Muhurat?’ Orders Deportation of 63 Foreigners

February 4, 2025, 1:21 pm

The Supreme Court has severely lambasted the Assam government for delaying the deportation of people declared as foreigners. A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asked the state government why it had not taken any action and if it was waiting for some "muhurat" to proceed with the deportations.

SC Directs Immediate Deportation of Foreigners

The court directed the Assam government to repatriate 63 people who are still in detention camps. These are foreigners who had been declared in the process of verification under the National Register of Citizens. The state government said that it didn't have their address details from their respective countries of origin and that this seemed not convincing enough to the Supreme Court. Justice Oka accused Assam of "suppressing facts," leading to Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta offering an apology on behalf of the executive, admitting to "some lacunae" in the process. Justice Oka issued a stern warning: "We will issue a perjury notice to you. You are supposed to come clean."

Court Questions Assam's Legal Stand on Detention

Justice Bhuyan also questioned the state's prolonged detention of foreigners without initiating deportation. "Once you declare a person as a foreigner, you must take the next logical step. You can't detain them forever. Article 21 is there. There are many foreign detention centers in Assam. How many have you deported?" he asked. Rebutting the argument of the state that it did nothing, Justice Oka provided a direct answer saying, "You deport them to the capital city of the country. Suppose the person is from Pakistan, you know the capital city of Pakistan? How can you keep them detained here saying their foreign address is not known?"

SC Urges Assam to Seek External Affairs Ministry's Help

The court also raised a question of why Assam did not seek assistance from the Ministry of External Affairs regarding the process of deportation. "You know the status of their citizenship. Then how can you wait till their address is received? It is for the other country to decide where should they go," Justice Oka asserted. The Supreme Court remarks have heightened the controversy surrounding Assam's handling of cases of deportation of foreigners, which it urgently called for to maintain legal and human rights principles.

SC Declines PIL for Mahakumbh Safety Measures After Tragic Stampede

February 3, 2025, 2:02 pm

The Supreme Court called the stampede at the Maha Kumbh in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, an "unfortunate incident," but refused to take up a PIL seeking safety measures for pilgrims. The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, acknowledged the incident’s seriousness but advised the petitioner to approach the High Court instead.

UP Government’s Stance on the Issue

Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, informed the court that a judicial commission had already been set up to investigate the stampede. He also pointed out that a similar petition had been filed in the Allahabad High Court, urging the bench to direct the lawyer to address the matter there.

PIL’s Key Demands

The PIL, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, asked for measures to prevent VIP movements from compromising the safety of common devotees. It also sought ample space for pilgrims to enter and exit the event safely. The petition urged the Uttar Pradesh government to submit a status report on the January 29, 2025 stampede and take legal action against those responsible for negligence.

Tragic Outcome of the Stampede

The petition highlighted the stampede as a result of administrative failures. At least 30 people died, and over 60 were injured in the early-morning incident in the Sangam area.

Safety Measures for Future Pilgrims

The PIL called for better safety information for pilgrims. It recommended establishing facilitation centers with clear safety guidelines and announcements in multiple languages. The petition also suggested using SMS and WhatsApp to send safety information to devotees. Finally, it urged the deployment of small medical teams to manage emergencies effectively.

Supreme Court dismisses PIL challenging VIP darshan fees in temples

January 31, 2025, 3:47 pm

The Supreme Court on Friday chose not to consider a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) contesting the practice of levying additional fees for "VIP darshan" and the preferential treatment afforded to specific individuals in temples. A bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar asserted that decisions regarding such practices should be determined by society and temple officials, rather than the judiciary. "While we may believe that no special treatment ought to be provided, this court cannot issue orders. We do not consider this a suitable case to invoke jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution," the bench stated. Nonetheless, they indicated that dismissing the petition would not inhibit relevant authorities from taking appropriate action if necessary. Advocate Akash Vashishtha, acting on behalf of the petitioner, contended that there ought to be a uniform procedure for practices like "VIP darshan," pointing out issues at the 12 Jyotirlingas, where the practice is particularly notable. The petition, submitted by Vijay Kishor Goswami, a 'sevait' (caretaker) at Shri Radha Madan Mohan Temple in Vrindavan, asserted that the practice breached constitutional principles of equality, specifically Articles 14 and 21. It claimed that the charge for expedited darshan, between ₹400 and ₹500, created a distinction between affluent and less-privileged devotees, especially affecting marginalized groups like women, individuals with disabilities, and senior citizens. The petition further highlighted that even though representations had been submitted to the home ministry, states such as Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh had yet to address the matter. The plea requested the court to declare the additional fee unconstitutional and sought equal treatment for all temple visitors, along with the development of standard operating procedures to guarantee fair access to temples. Additionally, it advocated for the creation of a national board to supervise the management of temples throughout the country.

WhatsApp Wins Partial Stay on Data Sharing Ban, Faces ₹213 Crore Fine

January 23, 2025, 4:47 pm

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, or NCLAT, granted partial relief to WhatsApp on Thursday by staying the Competition Commission India's November 2024 order relating to the controversial privacy policy update of the company in 2021. The original order had barred WhatsApp from sharing the data of the users with its parent entity Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and other entities. It had penalized the company ₹213.14 crore for violation under the Competition Act for five years.

NCLAT Relieves WhatsApp on 5-Year Moratorium

NCLAT chairperson Ashok Bhushan ruled to set aside the 5-year ban on data sharing, stating that the moratorium could threaten WhatsApp's business model. The tribunal also recognized that the service provided free services to users and that this ban could lead to significant operational challenges. However, NCLAT emphasized that WhatsApp must pay 50% of the imposed ₹213.14 crore penalty within two weeks. Despite the relief, the tribunal did not stay with other parts of the CCI’s order, including requirements for WhatsApp to give users the option to opt out of data sharing for purposes other than providing WhatsApp services. WhatsApp will need to specify in its privacy policy what type of data is shared with Meta, and users must be given a choice to opt-out. This must be made available to all users, including those who previously accepted the 2021 update.

CCI’s Ruling and WhatsApp’s Response

In November 2024, the CCI concluded that WhatsApp is the dominant player in the Over-the-Top (OTT) messaging app market in India and that Meta holds a leading position in online display advertising. According to CCI, the mandatory acceptance of WhatsApp's updated terms, which included data sharing with Meta, was an "unfair condition" under the Competition Act. According to the CCI, this update compelled users into compliance since WhatsApp dominated the market, and data sharing between WhatsApp and Meta created entry barriers for rivals. Furthermore, the data sharing harmed the autonomy of the user and denied entry to rivals by violating the principle of competition law. WhatsApp and parent company Meta pleaded their case with NCLAT as they moved against the court order. Defense in the court for WhatsApp raised its plea for its business seriously impacted by such a 5-year ban that the company runs a free-of-cost service through which it generates all revenue. At the same time, legal counsel pointed out that Privacy Protection laws, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, et cetera should be studied within the said context.

NCLAT's Decision and Way Forward

NCLAT recognized the current debates on privacy and data protection in India and observed that the Supreme Court has not issued any interim orders so far on WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy. The tribunal also surmised that the DPDP Act, in case of its enactment, may settle the questions related to data protection and sharing as this controversy is centering around. Moreover, NCLAT allowed the CCI as well as WhatsApp to file review applications under any evolving changes of the Data Protection Act. The Tribunal fixed the further hearing for 17th March while requesting both sides to submit pleadings within six weeks.

WhatsApp Rebuttal Over NCLAT Decision

Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, welcomed NCLAT's decision to partially stay the CCI order. In a statement, Meta noted that its focus is on finding a solution that supports the millions of businesses reliant on WhatsApp for growth and innovation while ensuring a high-quality user experience. "Met with the welcome decision of partial stay by the NCLAT on the CCI order, we will analyze further steps; for now, our primary focus is finding a way ahead that should support millions of businesses that use our platform to grow and innovate as well as deliver high-quality experiences that users expect from WhatsApp," Meta said in a statement.

WhatsApp Continues to Face Pressure

The case falls under the general scrutiny that has been faced by WhatsApp and other tech firms over user privacy, data sharing, and respect for competition laws. As this legal battle progresses against WhatsApp, its handling of users' data becomes the focus and has potential implications regarding market strategy and future operations within India. The case embodies an interesting crossover of data protection, privacy, and competition law, with the NCLAT order having immediate relief but a long and arduous road ahead.

OpenAI to India Court: Deleting ChatGPT Data Breaches U.S. Law

January 23, 2025, 3:06 pm

OpenAI has told the Delhi High Court that complying with a request to delete training data used for its ChatGPT model would conflict with its legal obligations in the United States. This statement came in response to a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the Indian news agency ANI in November. It accuses the company OpenAI of using content it has published without its consent to train ChatGPT. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to delete ANI's data already stored by the AI model and violate copyright claims.

Allegations by ANI and Defense from OpenAI

In an 86-page court filing dated January 10, OpenAI denied the allegations, emphasizing that its AI models make fair use of publicly available data. ANI claims that OpenAI continues to store and use its content despite assurances during a November hearing that ChatGPT would no longer rely on ANI’s material. OpenAI explained that its training data is preserved under U.S. law as it faces similar lawsuits, including one filed by the New York Times. "OpenAI is therefore under a legal obligation, under the laws of the United States, to preserve, and not delete, the said training data," the company stated.

Jurisdiction Dispute

OpenAI further argued before the Delhi High Court that it lacks the jurisdiction to deal with the matter at hand, as this company does not have a physical presence or infrastructure in India. "The servers upon which (ChatGPT) stores its training data are similarly situated outside of India", OpenAI added in its submission. ANI, in which Reuters holds a 26% interest, contends that the Indian court has the authority to adjudicate the matter. The news agency also expressed concerns about unfair competition due to OpenAI’s commercial partnerships with global media outlets like Time magazine and the Financial Times.

ANI Accuses ChatGPT of Verbatim Reproduction

ANI has claimed that ChatGPT reproduces verbatim or substantially similar extracts of its content in response to user prompts. OpenAI refuted this, stating ANI had deliberately used its articles as prompts to test the AI’s responses, calling it an attempt to “manipulate ChatGPT.”

High-Stakes Case for AI and Copyright

This case represents one of the most significant legal challenges to AI use in India, touching on critical issues of copyright, fair use, and jurisdiction. It also highlights the growing tension between AI firms and content creators worldwide. The Delhi High Court will take up the case on January 28. OpenAI is, meanwhile, dealing with growing scrutiny as it moves from a nonprofit to a for-profit organization. In 2023, the company raised $6.6 billion to finance its AI progress and sealed deals with some of the world's leading media houses. As the date for the court approaches, the verdict in this case may mark a precedent for copyright disputes involving AI in India and elsewhere.

Atul Subhash Son to Stay with Mother, SC Dismisses Grandmother Custody Petition

January 20, 2025, 6:18 pm

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the plea of Atul Subhash's mother for his custody. She had filed it against the states of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Karnataka to trace the whereabouts of the child. Nikita Singhania, separated from her husband Atul Subhash, stayed in Gurugram, Haryana, while Subhash worked in Bengaluru. The estranged couple engaged in a legal battle over divorce, alimony, and child custody. Subhash's family, including his mother, sought custody of the child, claiming that Nikita was keeping him away. Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old software engineer, had taken his life in December. His suicide note and video accused his wife, Nikita Singhania, and her family of harassment. He stated that they had filed false cases against him, driving him to commit suicide. The video and suicide note sparked a huge debate on social media, with demands raised for action against Nikita and her family. Nikita Singhania, with whom the four-year-old child was staying, was at the center of the controversy. A Bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna and comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma interacted with the child before concluding that he stayed with his mother. The Court dismissed the grandmother's petition seeking custody of the child, stating that it would not entertain the plea. The grandmother had earlier raised objections regarding her daughter-in-law's failure to disclose the whereabouts of the child. Bengaluru police filed an FIR under sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for abetment of suicide and criminal act with a common intention. The Bengaluru police arrested Nikita, along with her mother and brother, although the court eventually granted them bail in Bengaluru. The case has raised important questions regarding harassment and legal battles within family disputes, especially in the context of marital disputes over divorce and child custody.

Sanjay Roy Sentenced to Life Imprisonment in RG Kar Medical College Murder Case

January 20, 2025, 2:53 pm

The Sealdah court in Kolkata sentenced 33-year-old Sanjay Roy, to life imprisonment till death for the murder of 31-year-old trainee doctor Moumita in August 2024. The court also imposes a fine of Rs 50,000. The West Bengal government has been asked by the court to compensate the post graduate trainee doctor's family of ₹17 Lakhs. The Sealdah court stated that it was not the “rarest of rare crimes”. Sanjay Roy, the man who raped and murdered an on-duty doctor at Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, has been sentenced after being convicted last week. The Civil and Criminal court delivered its verdict after a legal battle over the shocking crime that had taken place on August 9, 2024. On Monday, as the sentencing hearing continued, Roy, the erstwhile civic volunteer with Kolkata Police, continued to say that he was being framed. During the sentencing, Sanjay Roy's lawyer said, "Even if it is a rarest of rare case, there should be scope for reformation. The court has to show why the convict is not worth reformation or rehabilitation... The public prosecutor has to present evidence and give reasons why the person is not worth reformation and should be completely eliminated from society..." The victim's family lawyer said, “I want death sentence as maximum punishment…” The additional district and sessions judge of Sealdah court, Anirban Das, pronounced Roy guilty of the brutal assault and murder of the trainee doctor in a case that had captivated the city. During the sentencing, Roy was adamant that he had not committed the crime, expressing disbelief at the verdict. "I have not done anything, yet I have been held guilty," Roy told the court, reiterating his claims of being wrongfully accused. Found guilty of sexually assaulting the 31-year-old trainee doctor and throttling her to death, Sanjay Roy was convicted by the judge under Sections 64, 66 and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Section 64 (rape) of the BNS entails a punishment of not less than 10 years and can go up to life term.

CBI seeks Death Sentence

The prosecution, however, argued that the crime fell into the "rarest of rare" category, making Roy eligible for the death penalty. "This was an atrocious crime," the prosecution said, pointing out that the doctor was at her duty, serving as a medical professional in a government hospital. "She was a meritorious student, and her death represents a significant loss for society," they added, urging the court to impose the harshest penalty. The case has caught public attention with the brutality of the crime and the subsequent probe. The CBI had taken over the investigation after the preliminary police probe was questioned by the victim's family, who said that the probe was not deep enough. The parents of the deceased doctor complained that the probe by the CBI was also not up to the mark and that it did not identify or arrest other accused in the crime. They even complained that perhaps the real depths of the conspiracy may not have come to light.

Sanjay Roy's Defense and Controversial Claims

During the entire trial, Roy's defense attorneys maintained that he was not guilty of killing the doctor and that he was forced to confess to the crime. The fact that Roy had raised claims of being framed elicited a reaction from the court since the details of the investigation all pointed to him as the lone culprit. Yet despite the evidence stacked against him, Roy maintained that his confession had been coerced. The Roy murder conviction has brought closure to the family of the victim, but the case is still in public debate. The sentencing comes after months of legal proceedings, which involved rigorous scrutiny of evidence, testimony by witnesses, and the handling of the case by concerned authorities.

Impact of RG Kar Murder Case

The tragic loss of the young doctor at RG Kar Medical College has left a profound impact on the community, raising concerns about safety for medical professionals working in high-stress environments. It has also led to discussions about the broader issues of violence against women and professionals working in critical sectors. The crime took place on the night of 9 August, when the woman, who was a junior doctor at the city's RG Kar Medical College, had gone to a seminar room to rest after a grueling 36-hour shift.

Sharon Raj Murder Case: Greeshma Gets Death Sentence for Poisoning

January 20, 2025, 2:14 pm

The Additional District Sessions Court in Thiruvananthapuram sentenced a 24-year-old woman, Greeshma, to death for the murder of 23-year-old Sharon Raj in October 2022. The court had reserved the sentencing for January 20 after convicting Greeshma on January 17. Her uncle, Nirmal Kumar, was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment for being an accomplice and for attempting to destroy evidence. Greeshma's mother, Sindhu, was acquitted by the court.

Court Terms it the 'Rarest of Rare' Crime Case

The Neyyattinkara Additional Sessions Court, in its judgment, declared the crime to be the "rarest of rare". The court said that Greeshma's act justified the maximum punishment for the crime. Even though she was a minor, her crime was so grave that could not go unpunished. Defense Greeshma, before this judgment, had also said she was a girl with a very promising academic career, and it would be the best opportunity to reform her. The court didn't accept such an argument while ruling that crime is very grave.

The Crime and Investigation

Sharon Raj of Parassala in Thiruvananthapuram died of internal organ failure on 25 October 2022. Upon investigation into the death, it was found that Greeshma had poisoned him as he had refused to terminate the relationship with her. This happened when she had invited Sharon to her place in Ramavarmanchirai, Tamil Nadu, on 14 October. She had poisoned him by offering him an ayurvedic drink there. Sharon began experiencing severe symptoms of poisoning shortly after leaving Greeshma’s house, including constant vomiting. His parents even contacted Greeshma, seeking information on what he had consumed to help him receive timely medical treatment. Sharon succumbed to the poison a few days later, leading to a thorough investigation.

Court’s Observations

The court condemned Greeshma's action, stating that she betrayed a person who had loved her and sent a very harmful message to society. The court also lauded the investigation team for conducting an extremely intelligent and thorough probe, which helped bring justice to Sharon Raj. The case has caught much attention due to the extreme consequences of a failed relationship and the tragic lengths to which one individual went to end it.

RG Kar Case: CBI Seeks Death Penalty for Sanjay Roy in Doctor’s Rape-Murder Case

January 20, 2025, 2:01 pm

A CBI court in West Bengal's Kolkata is to pass the quantum of punishment on Monday afternoon for Sanjay Roy. Sanjay Roy is convicted of raping and murdering a 31-year-old duty doctor inside the state-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in the city. By 2:45 p.m., the Sealdah court will hand over Roy's quantum of punishment. Roy continued claiming innocence in the case and also alleged that he was forced to sign multiple documents by the investigative agencies. The CBI and the victim's family demanded the maximum sentence of the death penalty for Roy. Sanjay Roy was brought to Sealdah Court on Monday for the pronouncement of his sentence. Flanked by several police vehicles, Roy was escorted out of jail around 10:15 am. The Sealdah court has been fortified with nearly 500 policemen deployed, ensuring no stone is left unturned to prevent any untoward incidents, an officer reported.

Mother's Heart-Wrenching Acceptance

Sanjay Roy's mother said she had accepted her son's punishment, saying that if he is guilty, he deserves the punishment, even if it means hanging. She added that she will "cry alone" but will accept his punishment as destiny.

Court Proceedings and Family's Trust in Judiciary

On 18 January, the court convicted Sanjay Roy in the case of rape and murder. When the parents of the deceased doctor headed to the court, they seemed to trust the judicial machinery to dispense justice. "We have faith in the judge," claimed the father of the victim. The mother of the deceased doctor, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the CBI probe on the grounds of "other perpetrators involved in the crime not having been brought to book."

CBI Seeks Death Penalty for Sanjay Roy

The main accused, Sanjay Roy, was also present in court as the central agency has sought the death penalty for him. The CBI also arrested former principal of RG Kar Medical College Sandeep Ghosh and Tala police station officer Abhijeet Mondal on charges of trying to destroy evidence in connection with the case. Calcutta High Court transferred the case to the CBI with strong remarks against the police and the state government for handling the immediate aftermath of the crime. As the court prepares to pronounce the quantum of the sentence, the authorities have ensured that security measures are in place to prevent any disruptions. The case continues to draw significant attention, with the public and the victim's family eagerly awaiting the final verdict.

SC Grant Relief to Puja Khedkar, Protects from Arrest till Next Hearing

January 15, 2025, 1:52 pm

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has provided relief to Puja Khedkar, an IAS probationer accused of misrepresenting her application for the 2022 UPSC Civil Services Examination to avail of reservation benefits. The apex court intervened and protected Puja Khedkar from arrest till February 14, 2025, offering her a major reprieve after the Delhi High Court had earlier denied her anticipatory bail.

Supreme Court Notice to Delhi Govt and UPSC

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma issued a notice to the Delhi government and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in response to Khedkar's plea for anticipatory bail. The case will again be heard on February 14, 2025. Khedkar's counsel during the proceedings strongly rebutted the allegations against her and asserted her innocence.

Delhi High Court Rejects Bail

The case is from December 2023, when the Delhi High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to Khedkar, accused of cheating and allegedly wrongfully availing OBC and disability quotas in the UPSC exam. The Delhi Police and the UPSC had opposed the bail plea, considering the seriousness of the accusations against Khedkar. Still, Khedkar had approached the Supreme Court to seek a stay on her arrest.

Cheating Allegations Against Puja Khedkar

The controversy began in July 2023 when the UPSC launched an inquiry into Khedkar's civil services examination attempt. The UPSC claimed that Khedkar had misrepresented her identity in order to avail multiple attempts in the examination under OBC and disability categories. This led to the registration of a criminal case against her, invoking provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act, and the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act. The Delhi Police subsequently filed an FIR against Khedkar.

Interim Protection Granted in August 2023

After the FIR was filed, Khedkar moved the Delhi High Court for anticipatory bail, citing that she was falsely implicated in the case. Although the High Court rejected her plea initially, it granted her interim protection against arrest on 12 August 2023. The court gave her interim relief several times but ultimately rejected her application for pre-arrest bail in December 2023. This is the reason why Khedkar is now appealing before the Supreme Court.

Khedkar Denies Charges

Khedkar has been denying the charges throughout the legal process, stating that she did not indulge in any fraudulent activities during the UPSC examination process. Her lawyers have argued that the allegations against her are baseless and politically motivated. The case continues to attract considerable attention, given the profile of the UPSC exams and the necessity to maintain fairness and transparency in the selection process. The Supreme Court has, in the meanwhile, granted Khedkar protection from arrest for the time being, which has been a temporary reprieve for her, and her supporters are hoping for a positive outcome when the matter is taken up again in February.

Legal and Political Ramifications

The result of this case will have deep implications, not only for Khedkar but for the credibility of the UPSC examination process as well. Khedkar will face serious legal repercussions if proven guilty, and he may also be disqualified from appearing in the civil services examinations further. The case has also sparked questions regarding the effectiveness of the systems in place to check on the authenticity of the information furnished by the applicants and to prevent fraudulent practices.

Rajasthan HC Issues Interim Bail for Asaram in 2013 Rape Case

January 14, 2025, 5:57 pm

The Rajasthan High Court granted interim bail to self-styled godman Asaram on Tuesday, allowing him to remain out of prison until March 31. Asaram is currently serving a life sentence for a 2013 rape case. This decision follows a similar move by the Supreme Court a week earlier, which granted him bail until March 31 in another rape case, citing his need for medical treatment due to various health issues. Following the Supreme Court's order, Asaram's legal team filed a plea for suspension of sentence in the high court.

The plea

A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vineet Kumar Mathur granted interim bail to Asaram, noting that the nature of the plea was similar to the one submitted to the Supreme Court. "We argued that the plea was similar in nature to that filed in the Supreme Court and the grounds stand valid in this case as well," Asaram's counsel, Nishant Bora, said. Bora added that the conditions for Asaram's interim bail are the same as those set by the Supreme Court on January 7, with one exception. "If Asaram wants to travel outside (Jodhpur), he will have to bear the expenses of the three constables who have been asked to accompany him," Bora said.

Life sentence

In April 2018, a lower court sentenced Asaram to life imprisonment for sexually assaulting a minor at his ashram in Jodhpur in 2013.

Rahul Gandhi Granted Bail in Savarkar Defamation Case; Appears Virtually Before Pune Court

January 10, 2025, 10:41 pm

A Pune court on Friday granted bail to Rahul Gandhi, Congress MP and Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha, in a defamation case related to alleged remarks against Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Rahul appeared before the MP/MLA court, presided over by special judge Amol Shinde, via video conferencing. The court granted him bail on a surety bond of ₹25,000, with Congress leader Mohan Joshi from Pune standing as surety. The case stems from a complaint filed by Savarkar's grandnephew, Satyaki Savarkar, before a magistrate court in Pune. The complaint accused Rahul Gandhi of making defamatory remarks about Savarkar during a speech in London on March 5, 2023. The case was later transferred to the MP/MLA court. Despite the court’s directive for Rahul to “personally appear,” he had missed previous hearings. His lawyer, Milind Pawar, explained that Rahul's absence was due to election campaigns in different states and the Winter Session of Parliament. Subsequently, Satyaki’s lawyer, Sangram Kolhatkar, filed an application seeking a non-bailable warrant against Rahul and action under IPC Section 174 (non-appearance). Advocate Pawar argued that as LoP in the Lok Sabha, Rahul’s presence in Parliament was critical, requesting exemption from personal appearance. The court granted the exemption and ordered Rahul to appear on January 10. On Friday morning, Advocate Pawar informed the court that Rahul would appear virtually. Submitting citations and rules from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, Pawar argued that virtual appearances were permissible. However, Advocate Kolhatkar contended there was no provision allowing an accused’s first appearance to be virtual. He referred to a Maharashtra government notification dated December 19, 2024, on the "High Court of Bombay Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2022." After hearing both sides, the court rejected Kolhatkar’s application. At around 5:15 PM, Rahul Gandhi appeared via video conferencing. Kolhatkar objected, stating that no “coordinator” for video conferencing had been appointed under Rule 5 of the aforementioned rules. The court dismissed this objection, citing “exceptional circumstances” under the rules, including concerns about “law and order and matters relating to the safety of the accused.” Advocate Pawar then filed applications for bail and exemption from future appearances on Rahul’s behalf. The court granted both applications. The court informed Rahul that the next hearing is scheduled for February 18. In his petition, Satyaki alleged that Rahul Gandhi had intentionally made “false, malicious, and wild” statements against Savarkar. The complaint included news reports and a YouTube video link of Rahul's London speech as evidence. Following the court’s directions, the Vishrambag police station conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on May 27, 2024, alleging that Rahul Gandhi had defamed Savarkar during his address to the Indian diaspora in London.

Bombay HC Denies Plea for Stricter Rules to Prevent Black Marketing of Coldplay Tickets

January 10, 2025, 2:23 pm

On Friday, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition that sought the creation of guidelines to prevent black marketing and ticket scalping at large events. The case followed allegations of irregularities during the ticket sales for Coldplay’s upcoming concert in Navi Mumbai. Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar stated that the issues raised in the plea fell under the legislative domain, and therefore, the court could not intervene. "This is a legislative and executive decision. The court cannot interfere. The government is at liberty to formulate legislation addressing the concerns raised in the petition," the bench said. However, the court allowed the petitioner to present the concerns to the relevant authorities. The petitioner, advocate Amit Vyas, had argued that the sale of tickets for major events, including concerts and live shows, was marred by illegal practices. Vyas claimed that such issues were evident during the Coldplay ticket sale on BookMyShow, where tickets were allegedly sold out too quickly, only to appear later at inflated prices on secondary websites. The petition sought stronger measures to prevent black marketing and ticket scalping, citing similar issues during IPL matches, the 2023 Cricket World Cup, and concerts by Taylor Swift and Diljit Dosanjh. The petitioner argued that event organizers and ticketing platforms exploit fans by allowing tickets to be resold at much higher prices. Vyas had also filed a complaint with the police's economic offenses wing last year, which is still under investigation.

Sambhal Court Sets 5 March for Jama Masjid Survey Case Hearing

January 8, 2025, 5:00 pm

A Sambhal court has set the next hearing date for March 5 in the ongoing case regarding the Shahi Jama Masjid and the claims surrounding its survey. Shakil Ahmad Wari, the advocate for the Muslim side, confirmed that he had filed a copy of the Supreme Court’s order in the court. The order directs all lower courts to refrain from entertaining new suits requesting surveys of any places of worship until further notice. “The Supreme Court has issued a directive to lower courts not to entertain new suits seeking surveys of any place of worship. We have submitted the copy of this order, and the court has set March 5 as the next hearing date,” said Wari, as quoted by news agency PTI.

Dispute Over Mosque’s Historical Significance

The Hindu side claims that the mosque was built over an ancient Harihar temple. However, Wari firmly denied this. Wari stated that the Muslim side would present evidence to prove that the site was always home to the Jama Masjid, not a temple. “We will prove in court that it was not a Harihar temple but the Jama Masjid. We have all the evidence,” Wari added.

Hearing Scheduled Following Violence During Survey

Supreme Court lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain filed a petition. This led to a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid on November 19. He claimed that a temple once stood at the site. The survey sparked violence on November 24. The violence lead the deaths of four people and injuries to several others, including 29 police officers. In response, the Supreme Court ordered the Sambhal trial court to halt any further orders on the survey. Supreme Court also urged the Uttar Pradesh government to maintain peace and harmony in the region. The court is set to hear both sides' arguments on March 5, as the case continues to unfold.

High Court Demands Action After Safari Vehicles Obstruct Tigress in Umred-Pauni-Karhandla Sanctuary

January 7, 2025, 2:07 pm

The Bombay High Court has strongly criticized an incident involving safari vehicles carrying tourists that obstructed the movement of a tigress and her cubs. This occurred in Maharashtra's Umred-Pauni-Karhandla Sanctuary on New Year's Eve. On January 6, 2025, Justices Nitin Sambre and Vrushali Joshi of the HC's Nagpur bench issued a notice to the state's principal chief conservator of forests. They are seeking a detailed affidavit on actions taken and preventive measures. The bench will hear the plea on January 8, 2025. Safari vehicles crowded around the tigress, identified as F-2, and her five cubs on both sides of the road. This was in the sanctuary's buffer zone in viral videos from December 31, 2024. Tourists captured photos and videos of the animals.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Nagpur Today News (@nagpur_today)

Taking suo motu cognizance of the videos and news reports, the state forest department on January 6 suspended four drivers and guides involved in the incident for three months. Authorities imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the gypsy SUV drivers and fined nature guides ₹1,000 each. They registered cases against them under relevant sections of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

Stricter Wildlife Protection Measures

Pench Tiger Reserve (Nagpur) deputy director Prabhu Nath Shukla stated that tourists violated sanctuary rules by blocking the path of the tigress F-2 and her cubs. This incident involved multiple safari vehicles at Gothangaon in Kuhi wildlife range. Consequently, tourists involved in the incident have been permanently banned from future visits to the sanctuary. Moreover, the deputy director of Bor Tiger Reserve heads a committee to recommend measures to prevent similar incidents. Furthermore, authorities have instructed field officers and staff to increase regular patrolling along safari routes. Additionally, special meetings and workshops are being organized for nature guides and gypsy drivers to raise awareness and sensitivity towards ecotourism. The Bombay High Court and the state forest department aim to ensure the protection of wildlife in the Umred-Pauni-Karhandla Sanctuary through these actions. They also aim to promote responsible tourism practices by implementing these measures.

Nimisha Priya’s Death Sentence in Yemen: Top Indian legal voices urge govt to take strong action

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

New Delhi: The government of India has intensified its efforts to assist Nimisha Priya, an Indian national currently on death row in Yemen. Priya, a nurse from Kerala, was arrested in 2017 and was sentenced to death in 2020 by a Yemeni court for her involvement in the murder of a Yemeni citizen. Recently, Yemen president Rashad al-Alimi has signed off on her death sentence. This has sparked concern among legal luminaries in India. The Supreme Court of India's Senior Advocate Pinky Anand criticised the death sentence for Priya and asked the Government of India to consider approaching the International Court of Justice. In an exclusive conversation with iTV Network, Anand said: 'Death sentence to Priya in the unfortunate tragic terrorised circumstances that too after a protracted trial is unwarranted.' Anand said that the factum of blood money option which could not fructify in such circumstances, executive clemency should have been exercised. Anand further said that Priya has already suffered incarceration for a lengthy period and suggested the government approach ICJ. On the other hand, the Supreme Court Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted the complexities of strict legal systems in such nations, noting that the death penalty in Yemen is imposed for a range of offenses, including murder, adultery among others. Pavani said, 'The Indian government must step in to ensure the safety of its citizens abroad.' She also pointed out that many Indian nationals in Gulf countries, are exposed to bonded labour, and are subject to harsh legal consequences, including death sentences. She said, 'The Ministry of External Affairs needs to be proactive in safeguarding its women citizens abroad.' Pavani said that women from regions like Haryana, Punjab and Kerala are lured abroad and subject to forced labour. She said: 'There needs to be a reliable helpline for Indian women, especially those working in Gulf countries. They are often trapped in abusive situations.'

Delhi HC Upholds Vitiligo As Absolute Reason For Rejection in Indian Army

December 27, 2024, 7:32 pm

The Delhi High Court in a landmark decision has held that a candidate suffering from vitiligo is not entitled to be recruited into armed forces. The Petition was filed against the rejection of his candidature for Assistant Commandant in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). It was argued that though the candidate was suffering from vitiligo, the same was under a covered area and in the Air Force, the candidates suffering from vitiligo can be permitted to be enrolled if the vitiligo is under a covered area. The Ministry of Home Affairs and ITBP through Central Government Standing Counsel, Ashish Dixit Advocate argued that vitiligo is a specific disability in the recruitment rules to the ITBP, and the same was duly notified in the advertisement. Dixit further argued that the Home Ministry guidelines of 2015 also state vitiligo to be grounds for rejection. The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shailender Kaur accepted the contention and held "...it is clear that the disease of vitiligo is an absolute reason for the rejection of the candidature. Merely because in other armed forces the disqualification is further qualified or whittled down, it cannot be a ground to import that condition into the present recruitment process. The respondent, in fact, is bound to scrupulously follow the advertisement and the conditions laid down therein. Applying which, the petitioner has been rightly rejected from being considered for the said post." Vitiligo is a chronic (long-lasting) autoimmune disorder that causes patches of skin to lose pigment or colour. This happens when melanocytes - skin cells that make pigment - are attacked and destroyed, causing the skin to turn a milky-white colour.

Banks Can Charge Interest Rates Exceeding 30% on Credit Card Dues, Rules Supreme Court

December 26, 2024, 4:33 pm

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that banks can charge interest rates exceeding 30% on credit card dues, overturning a sixteen-year-old verdict by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that deemed such charges as unfair trade practices. A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma stated that the NCDRC's assertion that interest rates above 30% per annum constituted an unfair trade practice was "illegal" and interfered with the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) clear authority. The court emphasized that the ruling contradicted the legislative intent of the Banking Regulation Act of 1949.

Clarification on Misrepresentation and Contract Terms

The Supreme Court clarified that banks had not misrepresented information to credit card holders, and the conditions for "deceptive practice" and unfair methods were absent. The court noted that the NCDRC lacked the jurisdiction to alter the terms of contracts mutually agreed upon by banks and credit card holders. The bench supported the RBI's position, stating that there was no basis for directing the RBI to impose a cap on interest rates for banks, either collectively or individually, in violation of the Banking Regulation Act and its associated directives.

Consumer Awareness and Contractual Obligations

The court acknowledged that while the national consumer commission has the authority to nullify unfair contracts, the interest rates set by banks, based on financial prudence and RBI guidelines, could not be deemed unconscionable or unilateral. It highlighted that credit card holders are adequately informed of their rights and responsibilities, including the necessity for timely payments and the penalties for delays. The Supreme Court pointed out that customers are made aware of key terms and conditions, including interest rates, at the time of obtaining credit cards, and they agree to these terms. The court concluded that since the terms of credit card operations were disclosed to the complainants prior to the issuance of the cards, the NCDRC could not scrutinize these terms, including the interest rates. Background of the Case The ruling came in response to appeals filed by Citibank, American Express, HSBC, and Standard Chartered Bank against the NCDRC's July 7, 2008, order, which had deemed interest rates ranging from 36% to 49% per annum as exorbitant and exploitative. The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the banks' ability to set interest rates within the framework established by the RBI, while also emphasizing the importance of consumer awareness regarding credit card terms.

Delhi High Court Issued Notice On Tahir Hussain’s Bail Petition In IB Staffer Ankit Sharma’s Murder Case: Delhi Riots

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Delhi High Court in the case Tahir Hussain v. State observed wherein the former Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Tahir Hussain moved the court on December 24, 2024 seeking bail in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau, IB staffer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The bench headed by Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta in the case observed and has issued notice on bail petition of Hussain wherein seeking the response of the Delhi Police. On December 03, the Trial Court rejected the Hussain’s regular bail petition for want of material change in circumstances. It has been argued by Hussain before the court that the Trial Court has completely disregarded the principle of grant of bail is rule especially in light of the fact that he has suffered long period of incarceration and that it is unlikely that the trial will conclude anytime soon. Further, Tahir submitted that as on date, he has completed 4 years and 9 months in custody. It being the case of him that out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined so far before the trial court, most of the alleged public eye-witnesses have either not supported the prosecution case or their testimony fails to inspire confidence of the court. It has also been contended by him before the court that co-accused persons allegedly were involved in the riotous mob and committing the offence of murder have already been granted bail by the High Court. Before the court, Tahir submitted that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that the allegation against him is remote as compared to other co-accused persons in the FIR. The counsel, Advocates Tara Narula, Sonal Sarda, Shivangi Sharma and Noyonika moved the bail petition. The FIR 65 of 2020 was registered at Dayalpur police station which being on the basis of the complaint made by deceased’s father. He also lodged a missing report when his son went missing during the riots. Later, Ankit’s body was recovered from a drain and he was declared as brought dead by GTB hospital. The son of complainant, an officer who is working with the Intelligence Bureau, left his house at around 5 pm on the said date for buying groceries and general household items. However, he did not return home even after several hours. The court found his dead body lying in a drain near Chand Bagh Pulia. He had sustained sharp injuries on his head, face, chest, back and on his waist. In the present matter, an First Information Report, FIR was registered by the complainant wherein it is stated that he had strong suspicion that his son was killed by the main accused Tahir Hussain and his associates. Further, the post-mortem report of the deceased Ankit Sharma revealed that there were 51 injuries caused due to sharp edged weapons and blunt force. Last Year, In March, the Trial Court framed charges against Tahir Hussain, Haseen, Nazim, Kasim, Sameer Khan, Anas, Firoz, Javed, Gulfam, Shoaib Alam and Muntajim. The charges are framed under section 147, section 148, section 153A, section 302, section 365, section 120B, section 149, section 188 and section 153A of Indian Penal Code, IPC 1860. Hussain was additionally charged under section 505, section 109 and section 114 of Indian Penal Code, IPC 1860. Accused Nazim was additionally charged under section 25 of the Arms Act.

Rape, Acid Attack, Survivors, Victims To Have Free Medical Treatment: Delhi HC

December 24, 2024, 5:06 pm

Delhi High Court on Tuesday gave order that victims of rape, acid attacks, sexual assaults, and survivors of POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) cases are entitled to free medical treatment at government and private hospitals, as well as nursing homes. A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma ruled that all Central and State Government-funded institutions, as well as private hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes, must comply with the directive to ensure that survivors of rape, acid attacks, and POCSO cases receive immediate medical care and necessary services. The Court clarified that "treatment" includes first aid, diagnosis, inpatient care, outpatient follow-ups, diagnostic and laboratory tests, surgeries if needed, physical and mental counselling, psychological support, and family counselling. The Court noted that a significant number of rape and POCSO cases regularly come before the judiciary. Survivors in these cases often require urgent medical intervention or prolonged medical assistance, including hospital admission, diagnostics, surgical procedures, medications, and counselling services. Despite existing provisions under the BNSS or CrPC, as well as guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), the Court observed that survivors of sexual violence and acid attacks continue to face challenges in accessing free medical treatment. The Court issued several key directives, including the circulation of its ruling to all courts dealing with sexual offences, such as POCSO Courts, Criminal Courts, and Family Courts. The directive aims to ensure that all victims and survivors, in accordance with Section 397 of the BNS (Section 357C of the CrPC), are informed of their legal rights. The Court also mandated that appropriate steps be taken to refer such cases to the relevant medical establishments--whether public, government, or private--whenever courts encounter cases requiring medical assistance for victims or survivors.

Delhi High Court Finds Two Answers ‘Demonstrably Wrong’, Directed To Revise Results Of Petitioner: CLAT 2025

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Delhi High Court in the case Aditya Singh (minor) Versus. Consortium Of national Law Universities observed and has held that the law does not commend a total ‘hands off’ approach for Courts where the answer key is demonstrably wrong, underscoring that injustice caused to a candidate must be undone. The bench headed by Justice Jyoti Singh in the case observed that there being no absolute proscription against a Court examining a challenge to the answer key in an examination process, even if there is an expert opinion before the Court. The court in the case stated that the law does not commend a total ‘hands off’ approach and in exceptional cases where questions are found to be demonstrably wrong, the resultant injustice to a candidate must be redressed and undone. The bench headed by Justice Singh partly allowed a petition filed seeking to quash of the final answer key published for CLAT-UG 2025 examination conducted on December 01. In the present case, the petition was filed by a candidate who appeared in the examination and specifically challenged answers to five questions. Further, the court found two errors which is to be demonstrably clear and said that shutting a blind eye to the same would be injustice to the petitioner and that it may impact the result of other candidates. The court in the case directed that the result of the Petitioner will be revised to award marks to him for Question No.14 in accordance with the scheme of marking. The court stated that since the court upheld option ‘C’ as the correct answer, which was also the view of the Expert Committee, benefit cannot be restricted only to the Petitioner and will extend to all candidates who have opted for option ‘C’. The petition filed was opposed by Consortium of NLUs, wherein it is stated that an expert committee was constituted by the Consortium which has duly considered all objections received from various candidates before finalising the answer key. It has been stated by the consortium that it has adopted a rigorous internal process before finalising and publishing the Final Answer Key on December 07 and that such process gave adequate opportunity to all candidates, which includes the Petitioner, to raise their objections to the Provisional Answer Key. The counsel, Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Mr. Arjeet Gaur, Mr. Barinda Batra, Mr. Atul Kanti Tripathi, Mr. Suryansh Jamwal and Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocates appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Srikumar, Mr. A. K. Trivedi, Mr. Ram Shankar, Mr. Yash Jagra, Mr. Shubhansh Thakur and Ms. Shreya Sethi, Advocates represented the Respondent.

Who Is Justice V Ramasubramanian, Ex-SC Judge Named New NHRC Chief?

December 23, 2024, 11:55 pm

Former Supreme Court judge Justice V. Ramasubramanian was appointed as the new chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on Monday. The position had been vacant since June 1, when the tenure of Justice (Retd.) Arun Kumar Mishra came to an end. The NHRC announced the appointments on X, stating, “Hon'ble President of India appoints Shri Justice V. Ramasubramanian (Retd.) as the Chairperson, and Shri Priyank Kanoongo and Dr. Justice Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi (Retd.) as the Members of the National Human Rights Commission(NHRC), India.” Sources earlier revealed that the selection of the NHRC chairperson was finalized during a high-level committee meeting led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on December 18.

V Ramasubramanian

V. Ramasubramanian, born on June 30, 1958, graduated in Chemistry from Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda College, Chennai, according to the Supreme Court’s website. He later pursued law at Madras Law College and was enrolled as a member of the Bar on February 16, 1983. Over the next 23 years, he practiced law at the Madras High Court, working under Senior Advocates K. Sarvabhauman and T.R. Mani from 1983 to 1987. On July 31, 2006, he was appointed as an additional judge of the Madras High Court and was confirmed as a permanent judge on November 9, 2009. In 2016, he requested a transfer to the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Following the bifurcation of the High Courts in 2019, he continued as a judge in the Telangana High Court. Justice Ramasubramanian became the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court on June 22, 2019. Shortly thereafter, on September 23, 2019, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of India. Before his elevation, he practiced law extensively for 23 years across various domains, including service law, appearing before the Madras High Court, administrative tribunals, consumer forums, and civil courts. His judicial career charted a steady rise from the Madras High Court to the apex court of the country. Must Read: More Women, Not More MPs

More Women, Not More MPs

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

At the “Legally Speaking” event organized by NewsX , Lok Sabha MP Karti Chidambaram delved into the topic “Delimitation: Does India Need More MPs in Parliament?” He shared his candid views on issues ranging from representation to economic challenges, highlighting the need for pragmatic reforms rather than superficial expansions. Karti Chidambaram criticized the divisive nature of debates centered around religion, urging a shift in focus to pressing economic issues. “Why should religion even matter?” he questioned. “We should be addressing the lack of opportunities and economic growth rather than fixating on one’s faith, which is a private matter. Conversations centered on religion serve no practical purpose in advancing India’s development.” “Personally, I don’t identify with any caste, but I see no harm in conducting a census. Collecting data is not the issue—it’s how that data is used that matters. A census by itself is neutral; it’s the actions taken afterward that require scrutiny.” Using a light-hearted analogy, he explained, “As someone over six feet tall, I struggle with legroom in Parliament and on flights. But just because I face this inconvenience doesn’t mean airlines or Parliament will introduce broader seats. Similarly, a census isn’t inherently a solution—it’s a starting point.”

Is India’s secular future at stake?

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, remains one of India’s most debated pieces of legislation. Enacted during the tenure of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, it sought to freeze the religious character of places of worship as they existed on 15th August 1947, the day of India’s independence. This Act has been at the heart of multiple discussions in the political sphere, with varying opinions on its implications for communal harmony, historical justice, and the future of India’s religious landscape. Third Law and Constitution Dialogue event served as a platform for various stakeholders to share their perspectives on a law that continues to divide opinions and raise questions about the balance between historical justice and social peace. Among the key speakers were political leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, Mr. Salman Khurshid, Justice Iqbal Ansari and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay whose diverse viewpoints provided a comprehensive understanding of the nuances surrounding the law. Each speaker brought a unique angle, drawing upon their political ideologies, legal backgrounds, and vision for India’s future. At its core, the Places of Worship Act was designed to prevent disputes over religious sites and promote national integration. The Act prohibited the alteration of the religious character of any place of worship as it stood on 15th August 1947, with a notable exception—the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which had already been a matter of intense litigation at the time. The law effectively sought to preserve peace by freezing the status quo, preventing new claims on religious sites and discouraging attempts to alter their character based on historical conflicts. Naqvi, a prominent political leader, strongly defended the Act. His position is based on the belief that modern India must not allow the crimes of past foreign invaders—particularly those who destroyed religious sites during the Mughal Empire—to overshadow the spirit of inclusivity and peace in the present day. Naqvi contended that the present generation should not be held responsible for historical wrongs, and instead, it should focus on building a harmonious society free from the poison of communalism. Khurshid offered another perspective, one that emphasized the importance of closing the door on past religious disputes. He argued that reopening historical disputes would not only stoke communal tensions but would also lead to a never-ending cycle of “who did what to whom.” For him, the most important task was to ensure that India’s diverse communities could live together peacefully without being dragged into the controversies of the past. He recognized the need for some level of redressal but was firm in his belief that the solution lay in national reconciliation and the preservation of peace. “India consensually drew the line in 1947. To reopen these disputes is to risk raising the entire history of who did what to whom, undermining our commitment to live together.” Legal experts such as Justice Iqbal Ansari supported the Act’s alignment with India’s constitution, particularly the principles of secularism and equality. In his view, the purpose of the law was not to limit the freedoms of individuals but to ensure that these freedoms did not lead to the breakdown of social harmony. He cautioned against the temptation to reexamine historical grievances, urging that such actions could reintroduce divisive forces in Indian society. “The constitution is our guiding light. The purpose of this Act is to ensure peaceful coexistence, and this must be respected above all.” The debates surrounding the Places of Worship Act are not just about historical grievances or legal frameworks—they speak to the larger challenges of nation-building in a pluralistic society. India is a country with a deeply intertwined religious and cultural history, where historical injustices have shaped the social fabric. However, India is also a nation that prides itself on secularism, diversity, and coexistence.

Rajya Sabha MP Kartikeya Sharma bats for ‘Committee of Future Affairs’

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Member of Parliament of Rajya Sabha Kartikeya Sharma along with former Union Minister and Advocate K.J. Alphons, Meghna Bal Director Esya center and advisor Koan and Cyber technology expert Subimal Bhattacharya share their thoughts on the topic of Al : A theater to governance, Politics and Judiciary. on the Legally Speaking event — the 3rd Law and Constitution Dialogue organized by ITV Network on Friday, December 13, 2025. Kartikeya Sharma highlighted that India faces the same issues as the rest of the world and needs to stay ahead of the curve by understanding how AI will impact the country, particularly in adversarial contexts. Kartikeya Sharma discussed the challenges of regulating AI, noting that its evolution is difficult to predict. He referenced Justice Suryakant’s warning about the dangers of AI if left unregulated. As a member of the IT committee, he stressed the need for a comprehensive framework to address these issues, acknowledging that the European Union has made progress, but it’s not yet systematic or coherent. He emphasized the importance of ongoing discussions and debates before regulations can be effectively put in place, as unregulated AI could lead to serious challenges. Sharma also proposed creating a “Committee of Future Affairs” in India to better address emerging global challenges like AI. He highlighted that India faces the same issues as the rest of the world and needs to stay ahead of the curve by understanding how AI will impact the country, particularly in adversarial contexts. Quantifying these impacts would help solve many of the challenges, if not all. Alphons expressed a bleak view, claiming that the human species is already “finished” due to our dependence on mobile devices and social media for truth, emotions, and reactions. He suggested that technology, especially AI, is worsening the situation, and regulations won’t keep pace with its rapid development. He likened it to the quick emergence of new COVID variants, where regulations can’t keep up with fast-evolving technology. Bhattacharya acknowledged that while AI presents challenges, it’s not as catastrophic as some portray. AI has existed for decades, but the emergence of generative AI and large language models has increased its potential for misuse. The real concern lies in the massive data processing, algorithms, and biases that come with it. He emphasized the need for legislation and societal understanding to address these risks. He also questioned how to regulate AI effectively, such as whether websites should be watermarked to prevent misuse. While India doesn’t have specific AI legislation, existing laws like the Data Protection Act and IP Act can help address AI-related issues since it fundamentally deals with data. He pointed out that current policing doesn’t prioritize AI-related frauds, which are often treated with little urgency. Meghna emphasized that technology itself is not inherently bad; it depends on how it is used. For example, AI can be applied for advancements in medicine or, conversely, for harmful purposes like biological terrorism. The key question is how it is put to use. From her perspective, AI’s power comes from its computing capability combined with organized, accessible data, making virtually anything possible. The challenge is determining where to draw the line. She suggested that regulation should focus on defining what should not be done, especially what could potentially harm us. While there’s no clear-cut answer, she believes this is an ongoing process that will evolve over time.

‘Genocide of Pandits needs official recognition’

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul who retired from the Supreme Court last year in 2023 on Friday said that the genocide of Kashmiri Pandits, which took place over 30 years ago, requires “official recognition”. Speaking at the 3rd Law & Constitution Dialogue hosted by iTV Network at The Imperial Hotel, New Delhi, the former Supreme Court Judge while talking about the tragic genocide of Kashmiri Pandits said that the tragedy that happened three decades ago needs acknowledgment, justice, and reconciliation. Speaking about the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in late 1990s when militancy was at its peak in Jammu Kashmir, he said that the community does not seek a return to the past but “it does expect acknowledgment of the wrongs done to them.” This recognition, according to Kaul, is a crucial step towards addressing the pain and loss the community has endured. Highlighting that his understanding of this issue grew stronger only after his retirement as he had limited opportunity to engage with the displaced community when in office due to several constraints, he said “after stepping down, i received many interactions from individuals who shared their stories and concerns.” “When I was in office, I was more secluded and could not engage as much, but after my retirement, many came to me. From my interactions, it became clear that the community does not expect to return to the past, but at least wants recognition that something wrong was done to them”, he said. On the expectations from the displaced community, he noted that the community does not wish to revisit the past but seeks spaces where they can reconnect with their heritage and heal. “These small yet significant steps, he argued, could provide a sense of belonging and dignity”, he added. In his comments, Justice Kaul highlighted that there is a need for both political will and public support to make progress on this issue. Justice Kaul also stressed the importance of initiating open conversations to address the community’s concerns and aspirations.

‘Frustration with judicial delays bolsters appeal of bulldozer justice’: Mittal

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

At the Legally Speaking 3rd Law and Constitutional Dialogue event by NewsX, a fiery debate unfolded on the state of India’s judicial system, zeroing in on the contentious phenomenon of “Bulldozer Justice” and the growing judicial backlog. Featuring political analyst Tehsin Poonawala, BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal, and former Delhi Police Commissioner S.N. Srivastav, the panel grappled with the challenges of balancing swift action with legal integrity. The term “Bulldozer Justice” has risen to prominence as a symbol of swift enforcement against illegal encroachments and criminals. BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal acknowledged the public’s frustration with judicial delays, noting that these sentiments have bolstered the appeal of Bulldozer Justice. “While people must fear the law in a civilized society,” he remarked, “it’s essential to ensure that actions like demolitions follow legal procedures.” Mittal warned that bypassing due process risks legal overreach, potentially undermining public faith in the judiciary. He also highlighted inconsistencies in demolition laws across states, advocating for a uniform legal framework to safeguard constitutional principles. Tehsin Poonawala offered a staunch critique of extrajudicial practices, insisting that even the most egregious offenders must be subject to legal scrutiny. “No one should be punished outside the court system,” he declared, citing a 95-page judgment that mandates a 15-day eviction notice before demolishing property. Poonawala expressed concern over using Bulldozer Justice as a blanket solution, urging policymakers to prioritize fairness over expediency. “The separation of powers must be upheld,” he stated, emphasizing the judiciary’s role as a check against arbitrary governance. S.N. Srivastav, former Delhi Police Commissioner, delved into the public’s frustration with delayed justice, advocating for structural reforms to expedite case resolutions. He pointed to the case of Vikas Dubey as an example of reactive enforcement, cautioning against normalizing such measures. “Laws on encroachment, especially concerning government lands, must be implemented methodically, not reactively,” he stressed. Srivastav proposed measures to mitigate delays, including timely filing of chargesheets, reducing adjournments, and increasing the number of courts. He underscored the critical role of procedural reforms in accelerating justice delivery. The panelists unanimously emphasized the urgency of judicial reform to address India’s massive case backlog. Poonawala advocated for raising judges’ retirement age, establishing regional branches of the Supreme Court, and utilizing AI to resolve minor disputes. “Decentralizing the judiciary is essential to ensure greater access to justice,” he said. Mittal echoed the call for reform but urged caution about overextending the Supreme Court’s role, emphasizing the importance of respecting jurisdictional boundaries.

Spirited debate on perceived threats to Constitution

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

A spirited debate unfolded on the resilience of India’s Constitution and the perceived threats it faces in contemporary politics at Legally Speaking: 3rd Law and Constitutional Dialogu, event organised by iTV Network. D. Raja, Member of Rajya Sabha from the Communist Party of India (CPI), and Rakesh Sinha, former Member of Rajya Sabha from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), presented opposing views on the Constitution’s current state, political influence, and the challenges it endures. D. Raja opened his argument by asserting that the Constitution is indeed under threat, drawing attention to the tone of discussions during the Lok Sabha elections. He warned that certain political leaders were fostering the idea that the Constitution could be replaced, which he viewed as a direct challenge to India’s democracy. Raja cited Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s prescient words from January 26, 1950, the day India became a democracy, where Ambedkar had cautioned that India’s democracy was fragile and could easily be undermined. Raja stressed that Ambedkar had firmly opposed the idea of transforming India into a theocratic state, stating, “If India becomes a Hindurashtra, it will be the biggest calamity for the country.” Raja emphasized the importance of safeguarding the Constitution to preserve democracy, warning that any shift away from its foundational principles could lead to instability. In response, Rakesh Sinha argued that the concept of a “Hindurashtra” had never been discussed in the constituent assembly, pointing out that the Constitution had been built on a foundation of secularism and democracy. Sinha accused the Communist Party (CPI) of undermining the Constitution through its actions and historical alliances with the Congress Party. He criticized the CPI for trying to weaken the Constitution’s moral foundation, particularly with proposals like “one nation, one election,” which he argued would dilute the Constitution’s core values. Sinha also cited instances of constitutional violations during the Emergency and under Congress rule, including the curbing of press freedom. He noted that the inclusion of terms like “socialism” and “secularism” in the Constitution was contentious, with Ambedkar opposing them because they could compromise its original spirit. A significant portion of the debate was dedicated to comparing India with other countries. D. Raja rejected comparisons between India and China, emphasizing that India’s democratic ideals and diverse population make it unique. He contended that India’s democratic structure could not be equated with China’s authoritarian regime. Sinha, however, defended India’s secular identity, explaining that Hinduism, despite being the majority religion, had faced oppression in many parts of the world. He argued that India’s secularism was rooted in its majority Hindu population, contrasting it with the theocratic states of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sinha also addressed concerns about press freedom, noting that statements from the Home Minister about using force to silence dissent mirrored the press curbs seen during the Emergency. He cautioned against the manipulation of secularism for political gain and emphasized the importance of understanding India’s historical context. D. Raja raised concerns about the rights of Dalits, tribal communities, and women, questioning whether the current government was genuinely committed to upholding equality as promised by the Constitution. He also criticized the Congress’s relationship with billionaire George Soros, linking it to the persistence of untouchability in Indian politics. The debate between D. Raja and Rakesh Sinha highlighted the contrasting perspectives on the Constitution’s state in India today. While Raja expressed deep concerns about the erosion of democratic values and secularism, Sinha defended the Constitution as a robust mechanism for governance, constantly challenged by forces that seek to undermine its core principles. The discussion underscored the ongoing relevance of the Constitution and the need for a continuous dialogue to protect its integrity amid shifting political pressures.

‘Census isn’t inherently a solution, it’s a starting point’

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

At the Legally Speaking: 3rd Law and Constitutional Dialogue, event organised by iTV Network, Lok Sabha MP Karti Chidambaram addressed the topic “Delimitation: Does India Need More MPs in Parliament?” He offered candid insights on representation, economic challenges, and the necessity for pragmatic reforms over superficial expansions. Chidambaram criticized the divisive nature of religion-centric debates, urging a shift towards pressing economic issues. “Why should religion even matter?” he questioned. “We should be addressing the lack of opportunities and economic growth rather than fixating on one’s faith, which is a private matter. Conversations centered on religion serve no practical purpose in advancing India’s development.” On the caste census, he shared a balanced perspective: “Personally, I don’t identify with any caste, but I see no harm in conducting a census. Collecting data is not the issue—it’s how that data is used that matters. A census by itself is neutral; it’s the actions taken afterward that require scrutiny.” Using a light-hearted analogy, he explained, “As someone over six feet tall, I struggle with legroom in Parliament and on flights. But just because I face this inconvenience doesn’t mean airlines or Parliament will introduce broader seats. Similarly, a census isn’t inherently a solution—it’s a starting point.” Addressing the idea of increasing the number of Members of Parliament (MPs), Chidambaram was clear: “We don’t need more members. With 543 MPs, many already struggle to get speaking time. Expanding Parliament would turn it into a chaotic space. What we need is a more effective legislative process and stronger local governance to deliver services to the people.” He emphasized the inefficiency in the current setup: “Increasing seats won’t lead to better outcomes. Instead, we should focus on enhancing the quality of discussions and legislation.” Chidambaram dismissed concerns about population decline, countering alarmist rhetoric with pragmatism: “I’d welcome a decrease in population—it’s not a cause for concern. What we lack are employment opportunities for the current population, let alone a larger one.” He highlighted the regional economic divide: “What concerns me more than population growth is the economic inequality between the North and South. Bridging this gap should be our priority.” A strong advocate for gender equality in politics, Chidambaram called for greater representation of women in Parliament: “We need more women MPs, not more MPs overall. Women bring diverse perspectives and are equally capable as men. Unfortunately, most parties, including my own, fail to nominate enough women candidates. Exceptions like the TMC and BJD have set commendable examples.” He also addressed the inefficiency of increasing Parliament seats: “Increasing the number of seats in Parliament will make it less effective. Currently, there is already limited time for debates, and MPs often struggle to get an opportunity to speak. Adding more members will only exacerbate the issue, so that is not the solution.” Chidambaram reflected on the importance of discussions about the Constitution: “Celebrating 75 years of our Constitution is not just ceremonial—it’s an opportunity to acknowledge it as a living document that unites this nation and guides our democracy. Such discussions bring diverse perspectives to the forefront.” On Priyanka Gandhi’s potential role in Parliament, Chidambaram expressed confidence: “She is a natural leader with strong support across the country. I believe she has a long and impactful innings ahead of her.” Chidambaram candidly acknowledged the Congress party’s historical mistakes: “Yes, we’ve made mistakes, and we’ve apologized for them. Indira Gandhi expressed regret for the Emergency, and Manmohan Singh apologized for 1994. But tell me—has the BJP ever expressed regret for any of their actions? Admitting mistakes is a sign of accountability, something the BJP seems to lack.” He exclaimed by questioning the BJP on their acceptance of any mistakes.

Robust discussion on delimitation and North-South balance

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

At the Legally Speaking: 3rd Law and Constitutional Dialogue, event organised by iTV Network, prominent parliamentarians Kalanidhi Veeraswamy (DMK), Sasmit Patra (BJD), and P.P. Chaudhary (BJP) engaged in a robust discussion on the potential implications of delimitation on the North-South balance in India’s Parliament. The dialogue delved into demographic disparities, representation concerns, and the necessity for equitable governance. Kalanidhi Veeraswamy highlighted Tamil Nadu‘s demographic evolution, noting that the state’s fertility rate has declined from over 3 to 1.7, a trend common among southern states. In contrast, states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh maintain higher fertility rates around 2.7. He emphasized that the postponement of delimitation since the Emergency era has led to imbalances in representation, underscoring the need for a census to inform the delimitation process “The point about the delimitation since emergency, it has been postponed for like 25 years. Census should have been conducted in 2021. 2002 Delimitation commission that after 2026 the census should be done and only after that the delimitation process should be exercised.” He added. Sasmit Patra saidm “No, any govt. whether in the center from whichever party can really afford to neglect a state in federal form of govt. we have.” He underscored the importance of equality as enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. He advocated for a caste census to accurately identify reservation proportions and inform welfare measures, noting that current programs rely on outdated data from the 2011 Socio-Economic Caste Census. “The Biju Janta Dal and leader former hon’ble cm shri Navin Pathnaik has always battled for caste census. All welfare programmes of the country stems from which socio-economic caste census survey that was done in 2011. Today all the measures whether there is Pradhan Mantri awas yojana, various schemes still draws details from SECC. More than caste census for political reasons, caste census is essential to identify reservation and the proportions, welfare measures, social justice,” he added. P.P. Chaudhary addressed concerns about population growth, asserting that India’s demographic planning should focus on effective representation. He cited disparities in voter populations across constituencies, suggesting that increasing the number of Lok Sabha MPs could enhance representation. Chaudhary stated, “This formula is required to be devised. It is for the delimitation commission and law-making authority.” Chaudhury explained, “In India the population is planning and we have to make the best for it. The statement made by Mohan Bhagwat is perfectly correct. So far is the India perspective is concerned. Overall, there’s nothing to do with the religion or anything other. So far as the population is falling so far India is concerned if you compare it with other year, so that’s why it is relevant statement made in this perspective. Some of the state there are 16 lakhs voters but as far as my constituency is concerned, we are having around 22 lakhs voters, so if you want to have the effective representation of the member of parliament it deals with the constituencies, there must be more Lok sabha MPs. he added.” Patra raised a critical point about the lack of studies evaluating the performance of MPs relative to their constituencies’ populations. He advocated for a focus on the efficacy and effectiveness of representation rather than merely increasing numbers. “What is the right mix, ratio of a population vs one member of parliament… Instead of looking at the no. from the perspective of volumes rather looking at efficacy, and effectiveness.” Veeraswamy expressed concerns that an imbalance favoring northern states could lead political parties to neglect southern constituencies. “Whole purpose of the census exercise is to ensure the target people,” he added. “The representation of the people adequately should be done where the no. of population should be counted. When we look into US system of elections they have the electoral column,” Veeraswamy pointed out. The balance of 423 MPs come from northern states, and for any political party forming a govt. may not bother about the 423 MPs, they can focus on the 423 constituencies, he added. Chaudhary emphasized the need for a balanced approach, suggesting that the delimitation commission and legislative authorities devise a formula that ensures justice for all regions. Patra asserted that no central government can afford to neglect any state within India’s federal structure. He also noted that narratives emerging from census data often serve varied political agendas. “Once you belong to SC/ST class the reservation is already there. No purpose will be served for the caste census,” he said. “In the census/ caste census, many narratives would be drawn, each suiting to one selves,” he added. The discussion illuminated the complexities surrounding delimitation, highlighting the necessity for a balanced approach that upholds constitutional equality and ensures fair representation across India’s diverse regions.

‘Ambedkar Firmly Opposed Transforming India Into a Theocratic State’: CPI Leader D Raja

December 13, 2024, 9:01 pm

At the Legally Speaking event, a spirited debate unfolded on the resilience of India’s Constitution and the perceived threats it faces in contemporary politics. D. Raja, Member of Rajya Sabha from the Communist Party of India (CPI), and Rakesh Sinha, former Member of Rajya Sabha from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), presented opposing views on the Constitution’s current state, political influence, and the challenges it endures. D. Raja: The Constitution is Under Threat D. Raja opened his argument by asserting that the Constitution is indeed under threat, drawing attention to the tone of discussions during the Lok Sabha elections. He warned that certain political leaders were fostering the idea that the Constitution could be replaced, which he viewed as a direct challenge to India’s democracy. Raja cited Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s prescient words from January 26, 1950, the day India became a democracy, where Ambedkar had cautioned that India’s democracy was fragile and could easily be undermined. Raja stressed that Ambedkar had firmly opposed the idea of transforming India into a theocratic state, stating, “If India becomes a Hindurashtra, it will be the biggest calamity for the country.” Raja emphasized the importance of safeguarding the Constitution to preserve democracy, warning that any shift away from its foundational principles could lead to instability. Rakesh Sinha: Defending the Constitution In response, Rakesh Sinha argued that the concept of a “Hindurashtra” had never been discussed in the constituent assembly, pointing out that the Constitution had been built on a foundation of secularism and democracy. Sinha accused the Communist Party (CPI) of undermining the Constitution through its actions and historical alliances with the Congress Party. He criticized the CPI for trying to weaken the Constitution’s moral foundation, particularly with proposals like “one nation, one election,” which he argued would dilute the Constitution’s core values. Sinha also cited instances of constitutional violations during the Emergency and under Congress rule, including the curbing of press freedom. He noted that the inclusion of terms like “socialism” and “secularism” in the Constitution was contentious, with Ambedkar opposing them because they could compromise its original spirit. Comparative Politics: India, China, and America A significant portion of the debate was dedicated to comparing India with other countries. D. Raja rejected comparisons between India and China, emphasizing that India’s democratic ideals and diverse population make it unique. He contended that India’s democratic structure could not be equated with China’s authoritarian regime. Sinha, however, defended India’s secular identity, explaining that Hinduism, despite being the majority religion, had faced oppression in many parts of the world. He argued that India’s secularism was rooted in its majority Hindu population, contrasting it with the theocratic states of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Sinha also addressed concerns about press freedom, noting that statements from the Home Minister about using force to silence dissent mirrored the press curbs seen during the Emergency. He cautioned against the manipulation of secularism for political gain and emphasized the importance of understanding India’s historical context. D. Raja on Democracy and Equality D. Raja raised concerns about the rights of Dalits, tribal communities, and women, questioning whether the current government was genuinely committed to upholding equality as promised by the Constitution. He also criticized the Congress’s relationship with billionaire George Soros, linking it to the persistence of untouchability in Indian politics. Raja cited Kerala as an example where, despite high literacy rates, the BJP had sought electoral bonds, which the Supreme Court later ruled unconstitutional. Also read: 'Historical Precedent for Simultaneous Elections, Article 356 Misused': Union Min Arjun Ram Meghwal A Divisive Debate The debate between D. Raja and Rakesh Sinha highlighted the contrasting perspectives on the Constitution’s state in India today. While Raja expressed deep concerns about the erosion of democratic values and secularism, Sinha defended the Constitution as a robust mechanism for governance, constantly challenged by forces that seek to undermine its core principles. The discussion underscored the ongoing relevance of the Constitution and the need for a continuous dialogue to protect its integrity amid shifting political pressures.

‘Historical Precedent for Simultaneous Elections, Article 356 Misused’: Union Min Arjun Ram Meghwal

December 13, 2024, 8:48 pm

At the ‘Legally Speaking’ event organized by NewsX, Union Minister of Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal delivered a thought-provoking address on topics ranging from the significance of Constitution Day to the contentious “One Nation, One Election” initiative. His remarks spanned electoral reforms, parliamentary challenges, and pressing national issues. Constitution Day: A Vision of PM Modi Union Minister Meghwal highlighted the evolution of Constitution Day, an initiative spearheaded by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “When PM Modi assumed office in 2014, prior to this, November 26 was observed as Law Day. It was PM Modi’s vision, stemming from his days as Gujarat’s Chief Minister, to honor the Constitution. He proposed that this day be observed as Constitution Day.” Meghwal elaborated on the origins of this observance, stating that in 2015, during Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s 125th birth anniversary celebrations, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment issued a circular declaring November 26 as Constitution Day. He credited PM Modi for transforming the day into a national celebration of the Constitution’s legacy. Debate on One Nation, One Election Addressing the controversial “One Nation, One Election” proposal recently approved by the Cabinet, Meghwal responded to opposition criticism that the government should instead focus on “One Nation, One Health System” or “One Nation, One Education System.” He dismissed these objections as unrelated, emphasizing the historical precedent for simultaneous elections between 1952 and 1967. “The cycle was broken due to mid-term polls and Article 356 misused to dismiss state governments,” he stated. Meghwal argued that the frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct disrupts governance and development. “PM Modi called an all-party meeting in 2019 on this subject, attended by leaders from all major parties except Congress,” he revealed. He pointed to countries like Indonesia and the U.S. as examples of streamlined electoral processes, urging opposition parties to support the reform. Census, Delimitation, and Women’s Reservation On the upcoming Census and its implications for the Women’s Reservation Act, Meghwal clarified, “The delimitation process is constitutionally frozen until 2026. After 2026, a Delimitation Commission will determine which seats are reserved for women and reassign SC/ST seats based on population changes. The Women’s Reservation Act, granting 33% reservation in Lok Sabha and Assemblies, will be implemented in subsequent elections.” Parliamentary Decorum and External Threats Meghwal also addressed allegations of conspiracies aimed at destabilizing India, citing recurring international controversies like the Hindenburg and Pegasus reports. “Some entities seem agitated by India’s rapid economic growth and stable government. They act through international reports or controversies, often surfacing days before Parliament sessions. This is a pattern to disrupt our institutions,” he asserted. Opposition’s No-Confidence Motion Against Rajya Sabha Chairman Meghwal criticized the opposition for filing a no-confidence motion against the Rajya Sabha Chairman, terming it “unprecedented.” He condemned their actions outside Parliament, stating, “They hold press conferences and malign the Vice President, which the Constitution doesn’t permit. Discussions should happen inside the House. This shows disrespect toward the Vice President.” Concerns Over Bangladesh and Minority Safety On the issue of atrocities against minorities in Bangladesh, which has garnered attention on social media, Meghwal stated, “This is a matter of concern. Even Dr. Ambedkar, during the partition, had warned about minorities facing atrocities in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The government is taking necessary action, and we are also exploring legal avenues to address this issue.” A Call for Democratic Consensus Reflecting on the challenges of managing Parliament as the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Law & Justice, Meghwal remarked, “It is one of the toughest jobs to ensure consensus and functioning in Parliament. These debates are crucial for our democracy, and I believe we are taking steps in the right direction.” The event showcased a comprehensive exploration of India’s pressing legal and political issues, underlining the government’s priorities and its firm stance against opposition criticism. From electoral reforms to safeguarding minority rights, Meghwal’s address was a testament to the complexities of governance in a diverse democracy.

‘Public’s Frustration With Judicial Delays Bolsters Appeal of Bulldozer Justice’: BJP Leader

December 13, 2024, 7:01 pm

At the Legally Speaking 3rd Law and Constitutional Dialogue event by NewsX, a fiery debate unfolded on the state of India’s judicial system, zeroing in on the contentious phenomenon of “Bulldozer Justice” and the growing judicial backlog. Featuring political analyst Tehsin Poonawala, BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal, and former Delhi Police Commissioner S.N. Srivastav, the panel grappled with the challenges of balancing swift action with legal integrity. Bulldozer Justice: Popular Appeal vs. Legal Overreach The term “Bulldozer Justice” has risen to prominence as a symbol of swift enforcement against illegal encroachments and criminals. BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal acknowledged the public’s frustration with judicial delays, noting that these sentiments have bolstered the appeal of Bulldozer Justice. “While people must fear the law in a civilized society,” he remarked, “it’s essential to ensure that actions like demolitions follow legal procedures.” Mittal warned that bypassing due process risks legal overreach, potentially undermining public faith in the judiciary. He also highlighted inconsistencies in demolition laws across states, advocating for a uniform legal framework to safeguard constitutional principles. Defending the Rule of Law Tehsin Poonawala offered a staunch critique of extrajudicial practices, insisting that even the most egregious offenders must be subject to legal scrutiny. “No one should be punished outside the court system,” he declared, citing a 95-page judgment that mandates a 15-day eviction notice before demolishing property. Poonawala expressed concern over using Bulldozer Justice as a blanket solution, urging policymakers to prioritize fairness over expediency. “The separation of powers must be upheld,” he stated, emphasizing the judiciary’s role as a check against arbitrary governance. Need for Speedy Justice S.N. Srivastav, former Delhi Police Commissioner, delved into the public’s frustration with delayed justice, advocating for structural reforms to expedite case resolutions. He pointed to the case of Vikas Dubey as an example of reactive enforcement, cautioning against normalizing such measures. “Laws on encroachment, especially concerning government lands, must be implemented methodically, not reactively,” he stressed. Srivastav proposed measures to mitigate delays, including timely filing of chargesheets, reducing adjournments, and increasing the number of courts. He underscored the critical role of procedural reforms in accelerating justice delivery. Judicial Reforms: A Collective Call The panelists unanimously emphasized the urgency of judicial reform to address India’s massive case backlog. Poonawala advocated for raising judges’ retirement age, establishing regional branches of the Supreme Court, and utilizing AI to resolve minor disputes. “Decentralizing the judiciary is essential to ensure greater access to justice,” he said. Mittal echoed the call for reform but urged caution about overextending the Supreme Court’s role, emphasizing the importance of respecting jurisdictional boundaries. Also read: 'I Was Tasked by Court to Present Facts… It’s Evident One Individual Was Responsible,' Kapil Sibal on RG Kar Rape-Murder Case Balancing Expediency and Fairness The debate illuminated the complexities of implementing Bulldozer Justice while preserving constitutional values. While swift action may satisfy public impatience, the panelists underscored the importance of balancing efficiency with fairness. “Legal actions must adhere to constitutional principles to ensure justice is both timely and equitable,” they agreed. The event offered a deep dive into the challenges and potential solutions for India’s judicial system, highlighting the need for comprehensive reform to foster a system that is efficient, just, and accountable to all citizens.

‘I Was Tasked by Court to Present Facts… It’s Evident One Individual Was Responsible,’ Kapil Sibal on RG Kar Rape-Murder Case

December 13, 2024, 6:43 pm

Veteran lawyer and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal delivered a thought-provoking virtual address at the Legally Speaking event organized by NewsX. In conversation with Editor-in-Chief Rishabh Gulati, Sibal discussed pivotal national and global issues, sharing personal anecdotes and offering advice. The Role of Ideology in Law When asked whether lawyers should align with specific ideologies, Sibal provided a clear and principled response: "A lawyer’s only ideology is adherence to the Constitution and its values. When we argue in court, the Constitution is our sole guide—our ‘bible’. Outside the courtroom, one may hold personal ideologies, but within its confines, our loyalty is to the Constitution." This statement underscores the importance of impartiality and commitment to constitutional principles in the legal profession. On Women’s Safety in Hospitals Addressing the RG Kar Medical College case, where concerns about the safety of women doctors had emerged, Sibal clarified his role: "I was tasked by the court to present facts regarding the case. The investigation has concluded, and it’s evident that one individual was responsible. He has been apprehended and is being prosecuted by the West Bengal Police." He emphasized that women’s safety in hospitals is a nationwide issue requiring urgent attention. India’s Growing Population and Parliamentary Seats On whether India needs more parliamentarians to address its growing population, Sibal referred to Mohan Bhagwat’s recent remarks encouraging families to have three children: "I hope this isn’t a call to increase population. What we truly need are robust systems to manage complexity in governance as our population grows." He addressed concerns over parliamentary seat allocation potentially disadvantaging southern and northeastern states post-census, stressing the need for a fair and thoughtful approach: "States that have successfully managed population growth shouldn’t be penalized. The country must reflect deeply before making decisions to ensure fairness for all regions." Sibal acknowledged the necessity of increasing parliamentary seats to better reflect India’s demographic realities and governance demands. Protecting Minority Rights Sibal highlighted the importance of safeguarding minority rights globally, with specific reference to Hindus in Bangladesh: "Minorities anywhere in the world must be safeguarded. Our government and India as a nation must be vocal about protecting Hindu minorities in Bangladesh. The same principle applies to minorities within India and globally." His remarks underscore India’s potential role as a voice for the vulnerable on the international stage. Rapid Fire with Kapil Sibal In a lighter segment, Sibal shared some of his personal favorites: Movies: Films of Dilip Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan. Songs: Classics by Kishore Kumar and Mohammed Rafi. Holiday Destination: "Anywhere beautiful and worth exploring." Also read: 'Decrease in Population Welcome, What We Lack Are Employment Opportunities': MP Karti Chidambaram Advice for Aspiring Lawyers For young legal professionals, Sibal offered three key pieces of advice: "Be honest, work hard, and have clarity in your motives." Kapil Sibal’s session blended profound insights with personal reflections, showcasing his legal acumen, political thoughtfulness, and human touch. From advocating constitutional fidelity to addressing critical governance challenges, his remarks serve as a reminder of the responsibilities of leaders and professionals in shaping a just and equitable society.

‘Delimitation Postponed 25 Years,’ DMK’s Veeraswamy Warns of North-South Imbalance

December 13, 2024, 6:33 pm

At the "Legally Speaking" event organized by NewsX, prominent parliamentarians Kalanidhi Veeraswamy (DMK), Sasmit Patra (BJD), and P.P. Chaudhary (BJP) engaged in a robust discussion on the potential implications of delimitation on the North-South balance in India's Parliament. The dialogue delved into demographic disparities, representation concerns, and the necessity for equitable governance. Demographic Disparities and Representation Kalanidhi Veeraswamy highlighted Tamil Nadu's demographic evolution, noting that the state's fertility rate has declined from over 3 to 1.7, a trend common among southern states. In contrast, states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh maintain higher fertility rates around 2.7. He emphasized that the postponement of delimitation since the Emergency era has led to imbalances in representation, underscoring the need for a census to inform the delimitation process “The point about the delimitation since emergency, it has been postponed for like 25 years. Census should have been conducted in 2021. 2002 Delimitation commission that after 2026 the census should be done and only after that the delimitation process should be exercised.” He added. Constitutional Equality and Caste Census Sasmit Patra saidm “No, any govt. whether in the center from whichever party can really afford to neglect a state in federal form of govt. we have.” He underscored the importance of equality as enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. He advocated for a caste census to accurately identify reservation proportions and inform welfare measures, noting that current programs rely on outdated data from the 2011 Socio-Economic Caste Census. “The biju janta dal and leader former hon’ble cm shri Navin Pathnaik has always battled for caste census. All welfare programmes of the country stems from which socio-economic caste census survey that was done in 2011. Today all the measures whether there is Pradhan Mantri awas yojana, various schemes still draws details from SECC. More than caste census for political reasons, caste census is essential to identify reservation and the proportions, welfare measures, social justice,” he added. Population Growth and Effective Representation P.P. Chaudhary addressed concerns about population growth, asserting that India's demographic planning should focus on effective representation. He cited disparities in voter populations across constituencies, suggesting that increasing the number of Lok Sabha MPs could enhance representation. Chaudhary stated, “This formula is required to be devised. It is for the delimitation commission and law-making authority.” Chaudhury explained, “In India the population is planning and we have to make the best for it. The statement made by Mohan Bhagwat is perfectly correct. So far is the India perspective is concerned. Overall, there’s nothing to do with the religion or anything other. So far as the population is falling so far India is concerned if you compare it with other year, so that’s why it is relevant statement made in this perspective. Some of the state there are 16 lakhs voters but as far as my constituency is concerned, we are having around 22 lakhs voters, so if you want to have the effective representation of the member of parliament it deals with the constituencies, there must be more Lok sabha MPs. he added.” Evaluating Parliamentary Efficacy Patra raised a critical point about the lack of studies evaluating the performance of MPs relative to their constituencies' populations. He advocated for a focus on the efficacy and effectiveness of representation rather than merely increasing numbers. “What is the right mix, ratio of a population vs one member of parliament… Instead of looking at the no. from the perspective of volumes rather looking at efficacy, and effectiveness.” Balancing Representation Veeraswamy expressed concerns that an imbalance favoring northern states could lead political parties to neglect southern constituencies. “Whole purpose of the census exercise is to ensure the target people," he added. “The representation of the people adequately should be done where the no. of population should be counted. When we look into US system of elections they have the electoral column,” Veeraswamy pointed out. The balance of 423 MPs come from northern states, and for any political party forming a govt. may not bother about the 423 MPs, they can focus on the 423 constituencies, he added. Chaudhary emphasized the need for a balanced approach, suggesting that the delimitation commission and legislative authorities devise a formula that ensures justice for all regions. Federal Priorities and Social Narratives Patra asserted that no central government can afford to neglect any state within India's federal structure. He also noted that narratives emerging from census data often serve varied political agendas. “Once you belong to SC/ST class the reservation is already there. No purpose will be served for the caste census,” he said. “In the census/ caste census, many narratives would be drawn, each suiting to one selves,” he added. Also read: Former Judge Rajesh Tandon Cites Cites Mudgal Judgment, Backs UCC The discussion illuminated the complexities surrounding delimitation, highlighting the necessity for a balanced approach that upholds constitutional equality and ensures fair representation across India's diverse regions.

Former Judge Rajesh Tandon Cites Mudgal Judgment, Backs UCC

December 13, 2024, 6:07 pm

At the Legally Speaking: 3rd Law and Constitutional Dialogue event, Justice Rajesh Tandon, former judge of the Uttarakhand High Court and ex-member of the Human Rights Commission, delivered a compelling address on critical legal and constitutional issues. In an interview with NewsX Executive Editor Devika Chopra, Justice Tandon discussed the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), the Indian Constitution's evolution over 75 years, and the pressing challenge of judicial backlogs. Uniform Civil Code: A Call for Equality Justice Tandon advocated for the implementation of the UCC as envisioned in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution. He emphasized the Supreme Court's support for this reform, aiming to establish a unified legal framework for all citizens, regardless of caste or religion. "Article 44 has to be implemented. It’s very good for the citizens; there should be one law for all," Justice Tandon asserted, referencing the Mudgal judgment that endorses the UCC. He expressed frustration over the prolonged delay in its enactment: "It’s been way too late that we have not implemented it." Addressing the challenges impeding the UCC, Justice Tandon urged legislators and parliamentarians to confront societal apprehensions. While acknowledging criticisms labeling the UCC as anti-Muslim, he refrained from commenting, citing the complexity of societal sentiments. Reflecting on 75 Years of the Indian Constitution Justice Tandon lauded the Indian Constitution as a dynamic document and highlighted the enduring significance of its Preamble, particularly its emphasis on dignity. "The dignity of individuals has been upheld, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and Section D of the Human Rights Protection Act," he noted. However, he stressed that constitutional ideals remain incomplete without ensuring access to basic amenities like food, shelter, and clothing. Drawing parallels with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Justice Tandon emphasized, "These basic needs protect the dignity of our lives and should be prioritized." Tackling Judicial Backlogs Justice Tandon addressed the severe burden on India’s judiciary due to the backlog of cases. He proposed utilizing retired High Court and Supreme Court judges to expedite case resolutions, citing Uttarakhand’s example, where retired judges reportedly help courts resolve 30-40 cases daily. Despite these efforts, he underscored the necessity for broader, systemic measures to tackle judicial delays nationwide. Championing Human Rights and Social Welfare As a former member of the Human Rights Commission in Uttarakhand, Justice Tandon recounted handling cases related to basic needs like shelter. He emphasized the importance of systemic reforms to ensure fundamental rights and alleviate poverty. "The dignity of the citizens is one thing which isn’t absolutely followed," Justice Tandon remarked, urging greater focus on social welfare to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and societal realities. Also read: 'Decrease in Population Welcome, What We Lack Are Employment Opportunities': MP Karti Chidambaram Justice Rajesh Tandon’s address at the Legally Speaking event provided a critical examination of India’s progress in realizing constitutional principles. By advocating for the UCC, addressing judicial delays, and prioritizing basic human rights, he underscored the need for an inclusive and equitable society. His insights serve as a clarion call for lawmakers, administrators, and society to uphold justice and dignity as enshrined in the Constitution.

‘Decrease in Population Welcome, What We Lack Are Employment Opportunities’: MP Karti Chidambaram

December 13, 2024, 5:56 pm

At the "Legally Speaking" event organized by NewsX, Lok Sabha MP Karti Chidambaram addressed the topic "Delimitation: Does India Need More MPs in Parliament?" He offered candid insights on representation, economic challenges, and the necessity for pragmatic reforms over superficial expansions. Advocating for Progress Beyond Religion and Caste Chidambaram criticized the divisive nature of religion-centric debates, urging a shift towards pressing economic issues. "Why should religion even matter?" he questioned. "We should be addressing the lack of opportunities and economic growth rather than fixating on one’s faith, which is a private matter. Conversations centered on religion serve no practical purpose in advancing India’s development." On the caste census, he shared a balanced perspective: "Personally, I don’t identify with any caste, but I see no harm in conducting a census. Collecting data is not the issue—it’s how that data is used that matters. A census by itself is neutral; it’s the actions taken afterward that require scrutiny." Using a light-hearted analogy, he explained, "As someone over six feet tall, I struggle with legroom in Parliament and on flights. But just because I face this inconvenience doesn’t mean airlines or Parliament will introduce broader seats. Similarly, a census isn’t inherently a solution—it’s a starting point." More MPs or More Effective Governance? Addressing the idea of increasing the number of Members of Parliament (MPs), Chidambaram was clear: "We don’t need more members. With 543 MPs, many already struggle to get speaking time. Expanding Parliament would turn it into a chaotic space. What we need is a more effective legislative process and stronger local governance to deliver services to the people." He emphasized the inefficiency in the current setup: "Increasing seats won’t lead to better outcomes. Instead, we should focus on enhancing the quality of discussions and legislation." Population Growth and Economic Inequality Chidambaram dismissed concerns about population decline, countering alarmist rhetoric with pragmatism: "I’d welcome a decrease in population—it’s not a cause for concern. What we lack are employment opportunities for the current population, let alone a larger one." He highlighted the regional economic divide: "What concerns me more than population growth is the economic inequality between the North and South. Bridging this gap should be our priority." Advocating for Women’s Representation A strong advocate for gender equality in politics, Chidambaram called for greater representation of women in Parliament: "We need more women MPs, not more MPs overall. Women bring diverse perspectives and are equally capable as men. Unfortunately, most parties, including my own, fail to nominate enough women candidates. Exceptions like the TMC and BJD have set commendable examples." He also addressed the inefficiency of increasing Parliament seats: "Increasing the number of seats in Parliament will make it less effective. Currently, there is already limited time for debates, and MPs often struggle to get an opportunity to speak. Adding more members will only exacerbate the issue, so that is not the solution." Discussing the Constitution in Parliament Chidambaram reflected on the importance of discussions about the Constitution: "Celebrating 75 years of our Constitution is not just ceremonial—it’s an opportunity to acknowledge it as a living document that unites this nation and guides our democracy. Such discussions bring diverse perspectives to the forefront." Priyanka Gandhi’s Leadership On Priyanka Gandhi’s potential role in Parliament, Chidambaram expressed confidence: "She is a natural leader with strong support across the country. I believe she has a long and impactful innings ahead of her." Also read: 'Two Articles in The Constitution Have To Be Amended For One Nation One Election To Come Into Effect' Accountability and Apologies Chidambaram candidly acknowledged the Congress party’s historical mistakes: "Yes, we’ve made mistakes, and we’ve apologized for them. Indira Gandhi expressed regret for the Emergency, and Manmohan Singh apologized for 1994. But tell me—has the BJP ever expressed regret for any of their actions? Admitting mistakes is a sign of accountability, something the BJP seems to lack." He concluded by questioning the BJP on their acceptance of any mistakes.

‘Two Articles in The Constitution Have To Be Amended For One Nation One Election To Come Into Effect’

December 13, 2024, 5:46 pm

At the 'Legally Speaking' event organized by NewsX, prominent figures including Supriya Shrinate (National Spokesperson, Congress), Aman Sinha (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India), and G.V.L. Narasimha Rao (Former Member of Rajya Sabha, BJP) engaged in a robust discussion on the topic: "Does One Nation One Election Erode India’s Federal Structure?" The Importance of One Nation One Election S.Y. Quraishi, Former Chief Election Commissioner of India, remarked, "The subject here is on the table for more than 10 years or more. The current controversy has been started when Mr. Narendra Modi before he became PM in 2013. All 3 tiers of election bodies should be held simultaneously and he gave the reason, cost, paralysis of administrations, no policy decisions could be taken." He further noted that issues like casteism, communalism, crony capitalism, and corruption persist, and from the Election Commission's perspective, simultaneous elections would be beneficial as "voters will be the same, and the machinery will be the same." Impact of Frequent Elections on Governance G.V.L. Narasimha Rao emphasized the challenges of constant electoral cycles, stating, "Elections are an important part of democracy, and we are holding elections to elect government. If you have elections every 3 months, you’re continuedly in that election mode, then no govt. can work peacefully." Federal Concerns and Opposition Addressing concerns about federalism, Supriya Shrinate argued, "The union cabinet has adopted the report presented by former president Kovind, likely to table the bill. 50% of the Indian states are not going to ratify this and also not able to pass the muster of the house." Cost Reduction Alternatives When questioned about alternatives to reduce public expenditure on elections, Shrinate pointed out, "There are about 30 lakh elected representatives in local bodies. It’s a very fancy acronym ONOE." Constitutional Amendments and Implementation Aman Sinha discussed the constitutional amendments required for implementing simultaneous elections: "Only 2 articles of the constitution are required to be amended, primarily article 83, 172. For the unexpired term supposing that if house is at loss of confidence in a particular leader of the house then in that scenario the election would happen for the expired term. Election year starts one year before any election is announced. Therefore, clearly one nation, one election is an integral part of developed India." Shrinate countered, questioning the assumptions behind the proposal: "On what basis has this been assumed that inflation would be curtailed?" Consensus and Alternatives Quraishi highlighted the lack of consensus on the issue: "Previously in 2013 PM Modi insisted that there should be a national debate which should lead to a consensus. But for the last 10 years, there has been no consensus. The idea was dropped." Sinha suggested minimal changes to existing laws: "The proposals which are in offing should make minimal changes. Article 82 itself provides that 82(1) when starts it says that Rajya Sabha will have a fixed tenure of 6 years. The same thing has to be incorporated and imbibed in 82 (2) by where lok sabha have a fix tenure and unexpired term supposing if some MP expires and the election is set aside for some reasons then the elections take place for the residual period only." Quraishi proposed a phased approach: "Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha’s election will be separated and panchayat election be also separate, panchayat election will be done after 100 days. The committee also stated that there would be a mid-term poll." Trust in Voters Shrinate expressed concerns about the impact on regional parties: "People in Indian policy-making and polity believes that this is against the grain of the constitution, this is against the federal nature of governance. This whole thing in the regional party is being scared; Congress and BJP are the political parties but we can’t negate the relevance and the emergence of the regional parties." Quraishi provided data on voting behavior: "77% of people vote for the same party and separated by one month it dropped down to 61%. Simultaneous elections actually influence voting behaviour adversely." Also read: Macron Appoints Francois Bayrou As New French Prime Minister Sinha noted the support from regional parties: "As far as regional parties have been concerned, there was about 50-60 parties were invited by high level committee. Majority of the party has also supported this idea."

Supreme Court Rejects PIL on Prasad Quality, Directs Plea to FSSAI

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) on November 29. The PIL sought nationwide regulations to ensure the quality of prasad and food at religious places.

Court’s Response

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan heard the case. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu argued for enforceable guidelines across India. However, the bench pointed out that existing laws could address the issue. When Naidu claimed that Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) guidelines were not binding, the court advised him to make a representation to the FSSAI. Justice Gavai emphasized the judiciary must respect its boundaries, referencing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement on Constitution Day about the Executive doing the same.

Issues Raised in the Petition

The petitioner, Preeti Harihara Mahapatra, highlighted the need to regulate prasad for public health and hygiene. Several concerns were presented:

Decline in Quality During Festivals: During busy times, prasad quality often drops due to high demand and limited supply.
Cases of Adulteration:
- In 2023, tests during Shrawani Mela at Baba Baidyanath Temple in Jharkhand revealed 65 adulterated samples.
- Authorities seized 2,820 kg of substandard ghee worth ₹8 lakh at Gujarat’s Ambaji Temple during prasad preparation.
- Tests at Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam found animal fat, including lard, in ghee supplied for prasad.
FSSAI Report Findings: The FSSAI Annual Report (2020-21) revealed that 28.56% of food samples tested were adulterated or misbranded. Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Tamil Nadu showed the highest rates of adulteration.
Non-Compliance with Past Judgment: The petitioner referenced the Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India case, where the court directed measures against milk adulteration. She argued that these directives were not fully enforced.

Concerns About FSSAI Guidelines

The plea criticized FSSAI’s BHOG (Blissful Hygienic Offering to God) initiative. Though it aims to improve hygiene at religious places, the guidelines are voluntary. As a result, many temple trusts ignore them.

Broader Issues

The petitioner also raised additional concerns:

Religious Affiliation of Temple Managers: She claimed that some managers are not practicing Hindus.
Temple Land Encroachments: She alleged that Tamil Nadu’s state governments allowed temple lands to be encroached upon for political benefits.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the PIL, suggesting that the petitioner explore other solutions. The court advised taking the matter to FSSAI or other authorities for appropriate action.

Supreme Court Orders Liquidation of Jet Airways After Lengthy Legal Battle

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court of India issued a ruling on Thursday, ordering the liquidation of Jet Airways, overturning the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) decision that had supported the transfer of the airline’s ownership to the Jalan-Kalrock Consortium (JKC) under an approved resolution plan.

Court’s Decision to Liquidate Jet Airways

A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra backed the appeal by the State Bank of India (SBI) and other creditors, who challenged the NCLAT's ruling. The bench stated that the court had to exercise its powers under Article 142 to order liquidation due to the five-year delay in finalizing the resolution process. This judgment ends the long-running legal struggle concerning Jet Airways, which was grounded in April 2019 due to severe financial troubles. The case focused on whether the Jalan-Kalrock Consortium (JKC), the successful bidder for the airline, had fulfilled its responsibilities, and whether the creditors acted within their rights by pushing for liquidation.

NCLAT’s March Ruling

In March, the NCLAT had upheld the resolution plan for Jet Airways, allowing JKC to take over and setting a 90-day deadline for completing the transfer of ownership. The NCLAT also authorized the adjustment of a ₹150 crore performance bank guarantee by JKC. However, the Supreme Court found this adjustment “perverse” and in violation of earlier orders from January and the terms of the resolution plan. The court also noted that this went against established legal principles.

Creditors’ Argument Against JKC

The creditors, led by SBI, Punjab National Bank, and JC Flowers Asset Reconstruction, challenged the NCLAT’s decision in the Supreme Court. They argued that JKC had failed to meet critical obligations, such as infusing ₹350 crore within the prescribed timeline and meeting other financial commitments, including mortgaging properties in Dubai. The Supreme Court agreed with the creditors, stating that JKC had not fulfilled its financial obligations under the resolution plan. It highlighted that JKC’s failure to meet commitments led to the eventual liquidation of the airline.

JKC’s Defense of Procedural Delays

In defense, JKC argued that delays in the resolution process, including the need for security clearances, hindered their efforts. The consortium stated that these delays led to significant financial losses, exceeding ₹600 crore. Despite this, JKC claimed to have honored its financial commitments, including an additional ₹100 crore infusion in September 2023.

Background on JKC’s Bid and Jet Airways’ Future

In 2021, JKC won the bid to revive Jet Airways, and the airline had aimed for a possible relaunch in 2024. However, due to the ongoing legal and financial issues, the court's ruling now brings a definitive end to the revival plans under the current resolution framework.

Law Student Sues Jindal Global Law School Over AI-Generated Exam Claims

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

A law student has taken legal action against OP Jindal Global University after failing his final exam due to claims that he used artificial intelligence (AI) to respond to the test questions.

Background of the Lawsuit

The student, Kaustubh Shakkarwar, is pursuing a Master of Laws (LLM) in Intellectual Property and Technology Laws at the Jindal Global Law School. According to a report from Bar and Bench, he has rejected the university's accusation that he relied on AI-generated responses during his examination. Shakkarwar stated in his petition that he took the end-term exam for the course titled “Law and Justice in the Globalising World” on May 18. He received notification from the Unfair Means Committee on June 25, informing him that his answers were deemed “88% AI-generated,” which resulted in his failure for the subject.

Court's Involvement

Following this decision, the Controller of Examinations supported the committee's ruling. In response, Shakkarwar, who has experience as a researcher for the Chief Justice of India, has now brought his case to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, disputing the allegations of AI usage. The court has instructed OP Jindal Global University to reply to Shakkarwar’s petition and has scheduled a hearing for November 14.

Student's Defense

In his legal filing, Shakkarwar, who operates an AI platform related to legal litigation, emphasized that the answers he submitted were his original work and that he did not utilize any AI tools. He criticized the university for not providing clear guidelines regarding AI usage and contended that plagiarism could only be proven if there was a breach of copyright. He stated, "The university is silent to state that use of AI would amount to ‘plagiarism’ and thus, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for what is not explicitly prohibited,” as noted in his petition. Additionally, he claimed that the university failed to provide any substantial evidence to back their accusations against him.

Supreme Court Upholds Key Citizenship Rule for Assam Migrants

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, a crucial rule determining Indian citizenship for illegal immigrants in Assam on Thursday. This ruling came with a majority decision of 4:1 from a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud.

Section 6A and the Assam Accord

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in 1985 following the Assam Accord, a political agreement aimed at addressing the issue of illegal immigration from Bangladesh into Assam. The provision specifically barred Bangladeshi migrants who had entered India between 1966 and 1971 from acquiring Indian citizenship and voting rights. The court's majority opinion, delivered by Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, and Manoj Misra, confirmed that Parliament had the authority to create this legislation. Chief Justice Chandrachud explained that the Assam Accord was a political solution tailored to the unique situation of illegal migration in Assam, and that it could have been extended to other regions if needed.

Assam's Unique Situation

Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out the significant impact of illegal migration on Assam compared to other states like West Bengal. He said, "The central government could have extended the act to other areas as well, but did not do so because it was unique to Assam. The number of migrants coming to Assam and their impact on culture etc. is higher in Assam." He further noted that the population of 40 lakh migrants in Assam had a more pronounced effect than the 57 lakh migrants in West Bengal due to Assam's smaller land area.

Dissenting Opinion

However, Justice JB Pardiwala dissented from the majority view, arguing that Section 6A was unconstitutional. He did not agree with the decision to uphold this provision, providing a contrasting opinion within the bench.

Legal Implications

The ruling has significant implications for the citizenship process in Assam. It reinforces the unique legal and political circumstances that shaped the Assam Accord, allowing the government to maintain distinct citizenship rules for illegal immigrants in the state. The court's decision highlights the complex relationship between law, politics, and migration in India, particularly in border states like Assam where immigration has had lasting cultural and social impacts.

‘No More Blindfolds’: Supreme Court’s New Lady Justice, ‘Eyes Wide Open’

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court of India has introduced a reimagined version of the 'Lady Justice' statue, marking a significant shift from its colonial representation. The updated statue features 'Lady Justice' with open eyes and the Constitution of India, replacing the traditional blindfold and sword, symbolizing a commitment to constitutional values and an inclusive approach to justice.

Lady Justice's Eyes Open: A Symbol of Equality

The redesign of 'Lady Justice' signifies a transformation in the perception of justice within the judiciary. Traditionally depicted with a blindfold to symbolize impartiality, the new statue features open eyes, a bold statement made by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud. “The law is not blind; it sees everyone equally,” CJI Chandrachud stated during the unveiling, emphasizing a modern approach to justice. This change represents a move away from colonial symbols towards a distinctly Indian interpretation of justice. The statue now stands proudly in the judges’ library, embodying a vigilant and inclusive legal identity.

Replacing the Sword with the Constitution

One of the most striking changes in the statue is the replacement of the sword with the Constitution of India. While the sword historically represented authority and punishment, its substitution with the Constitution reflects a shift towards a more principled approach to justice. The Constitution serves as the foundation of the judiciary, symbolizing the upholding of rights, equality, and fairness over mere retribution. A senior official from the Chief Justice’s office explained, “The sword is a symbol of violence, but courts deliver justice according to constitutional laws. The new statue aims to reflect this principle.”

Breaking Free from Colonial Legacy

The redesign of 'Lady Justice' is part of a broader initiative by the Indian judiciary to distance itself from colonial influences. Recent legal reforms, such as the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), further underscore this movement. CJI Chandrachud has been vocal about the importance of moving away from British-era symbols and laws, emphasizing that the judiciary’s role is to protect constitutional rights rather than to punish. As noted by a source close to the Chief Justice, “Justice Chandrachud believes that India should move forward from the British legacy, and that the law is never blind; it sees everyone equally.” This philosophy is now embodied in the redesigned 'Lady Justice.'

Retaining the Scales of Justice

Despite the significant changes, the scales of justice in 'Lady Justice's' right hand remain a vital symbol of impartiality. The scales represent the careful weighing of evidence, ensuring that all sides are considered equally before a verdict is reached. “The scales of justice represent balance in society and the idea that facts and arguments from both sides are weighed by courts before arriving at a conclusion,” said an official.

A Historical Perspective

The figure of Lady Justice has its roots in ancient Greek and Roman iconography, representing the law and moral force in society. Initially associated with Themis, the Titaness of divine law in ancient Greece, and later with Justitia, the Roman goddess of Justice, the symbolism of justice has evolved over centuries. Lady Justice gained prominence during the Renaissance, aligning with emerging legal ideals. The modern representation, often depicted with a blindfold, became a standard in courtrooms, emphasizing the principles of justice and equality before the law. The unveiling of the redesigned 'Lady Justice' statue by the Supreme Court of India signifies a crucial step toward reflecting contemporary judicial values. By embracing a more inclusive and constitutionally centered approach, the judiciary aims to embody a justice system that sees and serves all individuals equally.

Viral Photo Of Elderly Couple Sparks Debate On India’s Justice System

October 3, 2024, 10:51 pm

A poignant image of an elderly couple dragging years of case files on a wooden trolley near a high court has ignited conversations about the deep-rooted issues within India's justice system. Shared by Maheshwer Peri, the founder of Careers360, the photo encapsulates the challenges of those stuck in legal limbo.

A Symbol of Struggle

A few years back, In one of the court hearings that I was forced to attend, We saw this old couple doing the rounds at a high court. They carried files and papers of many years. The weight of the files represents the years they spent pleading, begging and seeking justice. Over… pic.twitter.com/QNGTVMR9D0
— Maheshwer Peri (@maheshperi) October 3, 2024

The photo, posted on X (formerly Twitter), shows the couple tightly holding hands, symbolizing their long fight for justice. Peri highlighted the “lax, insensitive, and empathy-lacking” nature of the system. The image has resonated with many, as it reflects the plight of individuals caught in the lengthy judicial process.

Online Reactions to the Heartbreaking Image

The image quickly gained traction, with thousands of views and comments. Some users expressed sympathy for the couple, while others criticized the system for being inaccessible to those without financial means. One user called out corruption, saying, “Lawyers and judges only work if they get exorbitant fees or bribes.”

Calls for Legal Reform

In his post, Peri emphasized the importance of law students taking up the cause of marginalized individuals like this couple. He encouraged the next generation to bring about social change by standing up for justice, adding, “As a lawyer, you don't just change laws—you change lives.”

A Troubling Reality: Backlog in Courts

The image also highlights the growing backlog in Indian courts. Reports show that pending cases in High Courts have increased by over 33% from 2019 to 2023. Subordinate courts fare even worse, with over 40 million cases still unresolved.

Hope for Change

While some users expressed skepticism about the system's ability to reform, others called for a renewed focus on humanity, justice, and compassion among India’s youth. The conversation surrounding this viral photo shows the urgent need for legal reform to address the inefficiencies and inaccessibility plaguing India's justice system.

‘Right To Disconnect’: Employees In Australia Can Now Ignore Calls After Working Hours

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Australia has implemented a groundbreaking law of 'Right To Disconnect' allowing employees to legally ignore work-related calls and emails outside of their designated working hours. The legislation, which came into effect on Monday, has drawn both praise and criticism, particularly from business groups concerned about its impact on operations.

Strict Penalties for Employers

Under the new law, employers could face fines of up to A$93,000 (approximately $63,000) if they contact employees for non-essential reasons outside of work hours. The law is designed to protect workers from being on call 24/7, a practice that has been linked to mental health issues. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, emphasized the importance of the new regulations. "Just as people don’t get paid 24 hours a day, they don’t have to work for 24 hours a day," Albanese stated, expressing confidence that the changes would enhance productivity across the workforce. He acknowledged the frustration many Australians feel about being constantly connected to work, noting that the law addresses a significant mental health concern.

Following International Trends

Australia joins a growing list of countries, including France, Spain, and Belgium, that have enacted similar "right to disconnect" laws. These measures aim to create a clearer boundary between work and personal time, reducing stress and improving the work-life balance for employees. Despite the law's intentions, it has faced pushback from local business groups. Andrew McKellar, CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, criticized the legislation as a "thought bubble" and expressed frustration that businesses were not consulted during its development.

Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt explained that any disputes regarding after-hours contact could be escalated to the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s industrial relations body, for resolution. However, Watt expressed hope that most issues could be settled through direct discussions between employers and employees without needing to involve the commission. The new regulations are effective immediately for employees of medium and large enterprises, while small businesses have been given a 12-month grace period before the law applies to their workers. The government believes that this phased approach will allow smaller enterprises to adapt to the changes without undue disruption. As Australia navigates the implementation of this significant change in workplace law, the impact on both workers' well-being and business operations will be closely monitored.

Kerala HC: Woman Cannot Be Charged With Sexual Harassment Under IPC Section 354A

August 17, 2024, 4:08 pm

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has observed that a woman cannot be charged with sexual harassment under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even if the harassment is alleged to have been directed at another woman. This observation was made by Justice A. Badharudeen while partially dismissing criminal proceedings initiated by a woman against her in-laws in a case of marital cruelty. Court's Interpretation of IPC Section 354A The case involved serious allegations, including a claim that the complainant was sexually harassed by her sister-in-law. However, the High Court clarified that Section 354A of the IPC, which specifically deals with sexual harassment, is applicable only to men. The Court highlighted that the statute uses the term "a man" deliberately, indicating that the law does not extend to actions by women. Justice Badharudeen noted, “To attract an offense under Section 354A of IPC, the actions described in subsections (1), (2), and (3) must be committed by 'a man.' The legislature's intentional use of 'a man' rather than 'any person' indicates a clear intent to exclude women from the purview of this section." Background of the Case The case in question revolved around a complaint of marital cruelty, where the woman alleged mistreatment by her husband, his parents, and his sister. The complainant accused her in-laws of various forms of cruelty, including demands for money and property, being locked in a room without food, and attempts to harm her by tampering with household appliances. Specifically, the complainant accused her sister-in-law of coercing her into inappropriate sexual activities through threats. Criminal charges were filed against the husband and in-laws under multiple sections of the IPC, including Section 498A (cruelty by a husband or relative), Section 354A (sexual harassment), and Section 34 (acts done by multiple people with a common intention). High Court's Decision Subsequently, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law approached the Kerala High Court to have the charges against them dismissed. The High Court, while addressing the case, ruled that the sexual harassment charges under Section 354A of the IPC could not be applied to women, leading to the partial dismissal of the case. The ruling is a critical interpretation of the IPC, reaffirming that Section 354A is gender-specific, applying solely to men, and thereby excluding women from being charged under this particular law.

Bombay HC Rules Egg Donor Has No Parental Claim Over Surrogate Child

August 13, 2024, 11:41 pm

In a significant legal ruling, the Bombay High Court decided that an egg donor cannot claim to be the biological parent of children born through surrogacy. The court's decision came as a reversal of a lower court's order, which had previously denied visitation rights to the biological mother of twin girls born via surrogacy. Background of the Case The case involved a woman who, after a marital separation, sought visitation rights to see her twin daughters, aged 5, born through a surrogate mother using her sister’s egg. The petitioner, who is the biological mother, argued that her estranged husband had moved into a new residence with her sister, the egg donor, without informing her. The husband contested the claim, asserting that his sister, due to her emotional state following the loss of her spouse and daughter, had moved in to help care for the children. He further argued that the egg donor had a right to be considered a biological parent of the twins. Court’s Decision Justice Milind Jadhav, in a single-judge bench, rejected the husband's claim, stating that while the egg donor contributed genetically, she did not hold parental rights. “As a donor, and a voluntary one, the younger sister may, at the most, qualify to be a genetic mother and nothing more,” Justice Jadhav clarified. The court referenced the 2005 Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) guidelines, which governed surrogacy agreements at the time of the case. These guidelines explicitly state that egg donors do not have parental rights or duties concerning the child. Consequently, the court upheld that the surrogacy agreement named the petitioner and her estranged husband as the intending parents. Visitation Rights Addressing the lower court's earlier decision to deny the petitioner interim visitation rights, the High Court found that it lacked proper consideration. As a result, the court directed the petitioner’s husband to allow her physical access to the twin daughters for three hours every Saturday and Sunday. This ruling highlights the importance of adhering to established surrogacy regulations and acknowledges the legal boundaries regarding parental rights in surrogacy cases.

MCD assures Delhi HC to halt demolish of illegal structure in Bhalswa Dairy colony

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) assured the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that it would halt the demolition of illegal structures in the Bhalswa Dairy colony until August 16. This assurance followed concerns raised by a lawyer representing the colony's residents about the planned demolitions. The High Court had earlier directed the MCD and other authorities to remove unauthorized constructions in all dairy colonies across Delhi. The bench, comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, acknowledged the MCD counsel's verbal statement and decided to address the matter on August 16. On that date, the court will also consider a petition regarding the condition of dairies in Delhi. The issue was brought before the bench led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan. The Delhi HC had previously instructed statutory authorities, including the MCD, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), to take immediate steps to relocate all dairies from Bhalswa to Ghogha Dairy colony within four weeks. The court noted that dairy plot allottees had illegally converted the plots into commercial and residential uses without legal sanction. The construction of superstructures on these plots was also deemed illegal, as the plots were exclusively designated for cattle sheds. The High Court emphasized that no legal claims could be made by the occupants of these unauthorized superstructures. The court had previously expressed concern over the inability of statutory authorities to prevent milch cattle from feeding on garbage from sanitary landfills near Bhalswa and Ghazipur. The court pointed out that 83 acres of unutilized land were available in Ghogha Dairy Colony, which could be used for relocating the Bhalswa Dairy Colony. In previous hearings, the Delhi HC issued multiple directions to maintain hygiene in dairy colonies, ensure the medical care of cattle, and prevent the use of spurious oxytocin. The court also directed the Chief Secretary of Delhi to file a detailed affidavit outlining a future road map for the nine dairy colonies. Additionally, the court-appointed a Court Commissioner to inspect Delhi's designated dairy colonies, where around 100,000 buffaloes and cows are used for commercial milk production. The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by three petitioners—Sunayana Sibal, Dr. Asher Jessudoss, and Akshita Kukreja, alumni of the Ahimsa Fellowship, represented by senior advocate Vivek Sibal. The petitioners highlighted severe violations, including animal cruelty, poor hygiene, environmental pollution, and public health hazards in the dairy colonies. They pointed to overcrowding, animals tethered with short ropes, injuries, diseases, and the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics and spurious drugs like Oxytocin, which is used to increase milk letdown in buffaloes but causes painful contractions. The petition also noted the presence of rotting carcasses, excreta, and improper waste disposal practices, contributing to fly infestation, mosquito breeding, and public nuisance.

SC Rules in Favor of Delhi LG’s Authority to Appoint Aldermen, Rejects AAP Plea

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Lieutenant Governor (L-G) of Delhi has the authority to appoint ten aldermen to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) without needing the state cabinet’s approval. This decision is a setback for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led Delhi government. The ruling was delivered by Justice PS Narasimha, with Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala also on the bench. Justice Narasimha stated that appointing aldermen is a “statutory duty” of the L-G, who does not need to consult the state cabinet for this. The court explained that according to Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, as amended in 1993, the L-G has the power to appoint aldermen. This power is not considered an outdated practice or an overreach of constitutional authority. The Supreme Court had earlier warned that giving the L-G this power could potentially disrupt the democratically elected MCD. The MCD includes 250 elected members and 10 nominated aldermen. The court had expressed concerns that allowing the L-G to nominate aldermen could destabilize the elected MCD by giving the L-G too much influence. In the December 2022 civic elections, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) won control of the MCD by securing 134 wards, ending the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) 15-year dominance. The BJP won 104 seats, while Congress took nine. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued that aldermen nominations should follow the city government's advice, a practice that has been in place for 30 years. However, additional solicitor general Sanjay Jain argued that this long-standing practice does not make it the correct approach.

SC Rejects Petitions Seeking SIT Probe In Electoral Bonds Case

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

In a significant development, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into alleged quid pro quo arrangements between corporates and political parties through Electoral Bonds donations. The Court indicated that ordering an investigation monitored by a retired judge would be "premature" and "inappropriate" since the remedies available under the ordinary criminal law procedure had not been pursued. Addressing individual grievances—claims of quid pro quo deals between political parties and corporate entities—the Court emphasized that these "will have to be pursued on basis of remedies available under the law," including the possibility of action if authorities decline to investigate specific claims.

Supreme Court's Remarks:

The Court noted that absent recourse to available legal remedies, it would be premature and inappropriate for the Court to interfere. Intervention must proceed after the failure of those remedies, and at this stage, the Court could not determine if these normal remedies would be ineffective. The Court further observed that reliefs like reopening tax assessments fall under specific statutory jurisdictions conferred upon authorities under the Income Tax Act and other laws. Issuing such directions at this stage would amount to a conclusion on facts, which would be inappropriate. The bench, comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, reviewed four petitions, including one jointly filed by NGOs Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and three others by Dr. Khem Singh Bhatti, Sudip Narayan Tamankar, and Jai Prakash Sharma. The Court also rejected pleas to direct authorities to recover donations received by political parties through electoral bonds and to reopen their income tax assessments. It stated that these actions fall within the statutory functions of authorities under the Income Tax Act, and issuing such directions would imply a conclusive opinion on disputed facts, which is inappropriate at this stage. In February, the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, which allowed for anonymous funding to political parties, and ordered the SBI to stop issuing Electoral Bonds immediately.

SC Permits Sub-Classification Within SC/ST Categories; CJI Addresses Persistent Discrimination

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict permitting sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) categories on Thursday. By a 6-1 majority, the court decided that states have the authority to implement sub-classification to allocate quotas for employment and educational admissions. In a notable decision, the court overruled its 2004 judgment in the Chinnaiah case, which had previously disallowed sub-classification of SCs. The seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, declared that such sub-classification is permissible for providing separate quotas to those within the SC/ST categories who are further marginalized. Chief Justice Chandrachud explained, "There are six opinions on this matter. A majority of us have decided to overturn the EV Chinnaiah ruling and affirm that sub-classification is allowed. Justice Bela Trivedi has expressed dissent. Members of the SC/ST communities often face systemic discrimination that hinders their advancement." The Supreme Court noted that historical evidence indicates that the depressed classes are not homogeneous, and social conditions reveal that the challenges faced by these groups are not uniform. Chief Justice Chandrachud added, “The difficulties encountered by a class do not vanish with their representation in lower positions.” Justice BR Gavai, who presented the concurring opinion, emphasized the need for policies to identify and exclude the "creamy layer" within the SC/ST categories from affirmative action measures. He argued, “This is the only way to achieve genuine equality.” Justice Gavai also referenced Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s 1949 speech, which stressed that social democracy is crucial for effective political democracy. He noted, “The court's previous ruling in the Indira Sawhney case allowed for sub-classification in more backward classes. Similarly, if a state determines that a particular caste is underrepresented, it is the state's responsibility to provide preferential treatment to more disadvantaged groups within the SC/ST categories.” The bench was composed of Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justice Gavai, Justice Trivedi, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Mishra, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Supreme Court Launches Special Lok Adalat to Address Case Backlog

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

To address the backlog of cases in the Supreme Court, a five-day special Lok Adalat has been initiated, starting Monday. This event, held to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Supreme Court's establishment, runs from July 29 to August 3. The Supreme Court has invited citizens to participate in the Lok Adalat to resolve disputes voluntarily and amicably. For the convenience of all involved, the Supreme Court Registry has set up dedicated video conference links for Special Lok Adalat sessions in Courts Nos. 1 to 7 throughout the week. The Special Lok Adalat sessions take place daily after 2 pm and involve two Supreme Court judges, a senior advocate, and one Advocate-on-Record. Litigants will also be present to resolve their cases. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has urged citizens with pending cases in the Supreme Court to participate in the Special Lok Adalat for speedy and amicable resolution. Lok Adalats play a crucial role in the judicial system by providing alternative dispute resolution methods, encouraging faster and amicable settlements. The Special Lok Adalat will handle cases with settlement potential, including matrimonial and property disputes, motor accident claims, land acquisition, compensation, and service and labor disputes. The Supreme Court registry has identified over 2,200 cases for this five-day event, including 911 motor accident claims. Seven courts are dedicated to conducting the Special Lok Adalat. Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal recently informed Parliament that the number of pending cases in the Supreme Court has increased by 35% over the past five years, from 59,859 in 2019 to 80,765 by the end of 2023, marking an increase of over 20,900 cases.

Brij Bhushan Sexual Harassment Case: Court Postpones Evidence Recording Due to FSL Delays

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

On Friday, the Rouse Avenue court postponed the recording of evidence in a sexual harassment case involving former MP and ex- WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The delay was due to a mobile phone seized during the investigation being held at the Forensic Science Lab (FSL) in Rohini, Delhi. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Priyanka Rajpoot deferred the chief examination of Constable Mukesh Kumar, who was involved in the investigation and had seized two mobile phones from Deepak Singh and Subedar Yadav in Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. These phones are currently at the FSL. The court also summoned a victim and another witness, Rashmi, to provide their evidence. The court noted that if the victim is uncomfortable testifying in the courtroom, her statement would be recorded in a vulnerable witness room. The next hearing is scheduled for August 6. On July 11, the court ordered the trial and recording of prosecution witness statements to commence in the alleged sexual harassment case against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and Vinod Tomar. Meanwhile, Brij Bhushan’s counsel, advocate Rajiv Mohan, withdrew an application seeking documents related to foreign travel and hotel stays, with the option to refile with detailed authority information. The court formally framed charges against Brij Bhushan and Vinod Tomar on May 21, which they denied, demanding a trial. Charges were initially ordered to be framed on May 10, based on allegations by several women wrestlers. The court found sufficient material to proceed against Brij Bhushan under sections 354 and 354A of the IPC and under section 506 (part 1) based on allegations from two women. However, he was discharged from allegations by a sixth wrestler. Vinod Tomar faced charges under section 506 (part 1) of the IPC based on one woman's allegations and was discharged from other allegations. The court scheduled the formal framing of charges for May 21. The Delhi Police chargesheet, filed against Brij Bhushan and Tomar, indicated they complied with Section 41A of the CrPC by joining the investigation without arrest. The 1,599-page chargesheet included statements from 44 witnesses and six statements under Section 164 of the CrPC, alongside several event photographs. The chargesheet concluded that Brij Bhushan was "liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences" of sexual harassment, molestation, and stalking. The case originated from complaints by women wrestlers, leading to two FIRs against Brij Bhushan—one under the POCSO Act, which resulted in a cancellation report for a minor wrestler, and another based on complaints from multiple wrestlers. The Delhi Police chargesheeted Brij Bhushan for offences under sections 354, 354A, and 354D of the IPC, and Vinod Tomar for offences under sections 109, 354, 354A, and 506 of the IPC, as confirmed by Suman Nalwa, PRO, Delhi Police.

Supreme Court To Review Governor’s Immunity Under Article 361: Questions Raised On Criminal Liability

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court of India has agreed to review the scope of Article 361, which provides "blanket immunity" to governors from criminal prosecution. This decision follows a plea from a female contractual employee accusing West Bengal Governor C.V. Ananda Bose of molestation. Chief Justice Issues Notice A bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has issued a notice to the West Bengal government regarding the plea. The petitioner seeks a judicial review of Article 361, which protects governors from criminal liability. The Supreme Court has also sought assistance from Attorney General R. Venkataramani to address this issue. Centre to Be Included in Plea The court has directed the woman employee from West Bengal's Raj Bhavan to include the Centre as a party in her plea. This inclusion is crucial for a comprehensive examination of the governor's immunity under Article 361. Article 361: An Exception to Equality Article 361 is an exception to Article 14 (right to equality) of the Indian Constitution. It states that the president or a governor is not answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of their office. Petitioner's Request The woman petitioner has requested a review of the guidelines under which governors enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution. This case could potentially redefine the legal boundaries of Article 361 and its application to governors' criminal liability.

SC to Review Plea for SIT Investigation into Electoral Bonds Quid Pro Quo Claims on July 22

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear petitions on July 22 seeking an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into alleged quid pro quo arrangements between corporates and political parties through Electoral Bonds donations. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, agreed to the hearing after advocate Prashant Bhushan requested an early date. The petitions, filed by NGOs Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), call for an investigation into the funding sources of shell companies and loss-making companies that have donated to political parties via electoral bonds. They also seek the recovery of these amounts from political parties if they are found to be proceeds of crime. The petitioners allege a multi-crore scam involving Electoral Bonds, which they argue can only be exposed through an independent investigation overseen by the Supreme Court. They request an SIT probe supervised by a retired Supreme Court judge to unravel conspiracies involving company officers, government officials, and political party functionaries, along with officers from agencies like the ED, IT, and CBI. The plea highlights that disclosed data, following the Supreme Court's ruling against the anonymous Electoral Bonds scheme, shows that many bonds were part of quid pro quo arrangements by corporates to secure government contracts, licenses, protection from investigations, or favorable policy changes. Additionally, several pharmaceutical companies under regulatory scrutiny for substandard drugs also bought Electoral Bonds, allegedly violating the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In a February verdict, the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, which allowed for anonymous donations to political parties, and ordered the SBI to stop issuing Electoral Bonds immediately. The court also nullified amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of People Act that had permitted anonymous donations.

Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Plea of Bilkis Bano Case Convicts

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a petition from two convicts in the Bilkis Bano case seeking interim bail. The petition was filed after their early release was canceled, and they were re-imprisoned following the apex court's January 8 verdict. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar rejected the plea, leading the convicts' counsel to withdraw the petition. The bench questioned the maintainability of the plea, stating, "How can, in Article 32, we sit over appeal?" On January 8, the Supreme Court annulled the Gujarat government's decision to grant remission to 11 convicts who had gangraped Bilkis Bano and murdered her family during the 2002 Godhra riots. In March, convicts Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah and Rajubhai Babulal Soni approached the Supreme Court, requesting that their premature release be reviewed by a larger bench due to conflicting orders from different benches. They argued that the January 8 verdict was judicially improper and created legal uncertainty. Their plea pointed out that the January 8 judgment by Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan overruled an earlier judgment by Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath, which held that the Gujarat government was the appropriate authority to decide on remission applications for the convicts. The plea stated that the January 8 judgment caused confusion about which legal precedent to follow. It also noted that the May 13, 2022, judgment by Justice Rastogi's bench directed the Gujarat government to consider the remission applications, which the convicts alleged was obtained by misleading the court. The Justice Nagarathna-led bench ruled that the Gujarat government was not competent to grant remission and that the Maharashtra government should decide on the matter, as the sentencing occurred within its territorial limits. The plea concluded that due to the conflicting judgments, the matter should be referred to a larger bench for final resolution.

West Bengal Forms Panel to Review New Criminal Laws

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

West Bengal has become the third state, after Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, to set up a committee to amend three new criminal laws. Governor CV Ananda Bose has asked the Mamata Banerjee government to explain the objectives of this seven-member panel. The committee, established on Wednesday, is headed by a former judge of the Calcutta High Court and will review the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The panel is led by retired Justice Ashim Kumar Roy and includes state law minister Malay Ghatak, state finance minister Chandrima Bhattacharya, the state advocate general, senior standing counsel of West Bengal in the Supreme Court Sanjay Basu, the DGP of West Bengal, and the Kolkata Police Commissioner. This committee will present its findings within three months and may involve academic experts, senior advocates, research assistants, and other legal experts. Public consultation may also be conducted. The Governor has requested a specific report on whether the West Bengal government responded to the Centre's proposal on time. In June, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, asking to delay the implementation of the three criminal laws and seeking further discussions in Parliament. On December 25, 2023, the President of India approved the BNS, BSA, and BNSS, which came into effect on July 1 this year.

Supreme Court Welcomes 2 New Judges, Including First from Manipur

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court has added two new judges following the appointments of Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice R Mahadevan, approved by President Droupadi Murmu. Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal announced these appointments today. Previously, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended the elevation of these two judges. With their inclusion, the Supreme Court now reaches its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges, including Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. Justice N Kotiswar Singh becomes the first judge from Manipur to join the Supreme Court. He is currently the Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Justice Singh, the son of Manipur's first Advocate General N Ibotombi Singh, graduated from Kirori Mal College and the Campus Law Centre, Delhi University. He began his career as an advocate in 1986 and has served as Manipur Advocate General before becoming a judge. His judicial experience includes serving at the Gauhati High Court and the Manipur High Court. Justice Mahadevan is presently the acting Chief Justice of Madras High Court. Born in Chennai, he is an alumnus of Madras Law College. As a lawyer, Justice Mahadevan has represented clients in over 9,000 cases and has held roles such as Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the Government of Tamil Nadu, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, and Senior Panel Counsel for the Government of India at Madras High Court. He was elevated to the position of judge at Madras High Court in 2013.

Delhi Excise Policy Case: Court Delays Charge Arguments to July 22

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Rouse Avenue court postponed the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) arguments on charges in the Delhi Excise policy case to July 22. Manish Sisodia and other accused, who are in judicial custody, appeared via video conferencing. Special judge Kaveri Baweja delayed the charge arguments after hearing from Advocate Nitesh Rana, setting a new date for the proceedings. CBI's Special Public Prosecutor, Advocate DP Singh, stated readiness for arguments on already acknowledged charge sheets. Earlier, the court had deferred cognizance of a supplementary charge sheet against K Kavitha to July 22, as requested by her counsel. Her bail plea will also be heard on the same day. Kavitha has sought default bail due to alleged defects in the charge sheet filed against her and remains in judicial custody until July 18. Previously, the court had postponed hearing K Kavitha's plea for default bail in the Delhi Excise policy case to July 22, following a notice issued to the CBI. Advocate Nitesh Rana represented Kavitha, arguing that the charge sheet was deemed defective during the court's consideration for cognizance on July 6. He requested default bail, citing the CBI's failure to file a complete charge sheet within the mandated 60-day period and sought interim bail during the pending bail application.

Government Plans Insurance Act Amendment for ‘Insurance for All by 2047’ in Budget Session

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

During the upcoming Parliament Budget Session, the government is set to propose amendments to the Insurance Act, 1938, aiming to achieve 'Insurance for All by 2047', sources reported. Key Points:

Proposed Amendments: The amendments aim to introduce provisions like composite licensing, differential capital requirements, and reduced solvency norms. These changes would allow insurers to offer a broader range of products and services, similar to the banking sector's differentiated models.
Composite Licensing: Currently, insurers are restricted by the IRDAI from offering both life and non-life products under a single entity. The proposed composite licensing would enable life insurers to underwrite health or general insurance policies, enhancing service offerings.
Capital Norms and Market Entry: Eased capital norms could facilitate the entry of insurers focusing on micro-insurance, agriculture, or regional markets, fostering economic growth and employment opportunities.
Policyholder Benefits: The amendments aim to prioritize policyholders' interests, improve returns, and enhance operational and financial efficiencies within the insurance industry.
Legislative Process: Once the draft bill is approved by the Union Cabinet, it will be presented in the Budget Session for discussion and potential enactment.

Conclusion: The proposed amendments to the Insurance Act, 1938, signify a significant step towards enhancing the regulatory framework in the insurance sector. If passed, these reforms could lead to a more dynamic and inclusive insurance market in India, aligning with broader economic goals and ensuring better consumer protection.

BMW Hit And Run Case: Mumbai Court Tells Police To ‘Do Homework’

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

A Mumbai court reprimanded city police for their lack of preparedness regarding a provision of the newly-enacted Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) in the BMW hit-and-run case. This case, involving the death of a woman after a luxury car, allegedly driven by the son of a Shiv Sena leader, struck a two-wheeler, is one of the first high-profile cases under the newly introduced BNS, which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on July 1.

Courtroom Confusion

On Monday, the Mumbai Police faced difficulties when questioned about their application of a specific BNS provision in the BMW hit-and-run case. Mumbai court asked why certain sections had been invoked. The police had applied Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 238 (destruction of evidence). Chief Metropolitan Magistrate SP Bhosale questioned the rationale behind using Section 105. When asked to explain, the Investigating Officer and other police personnel struggled to provide clear answers. The Magistrate then handed them a copy of the new law and granted a five-minute recess to formulate a response. Even after the break, the police were unable to present a satisfactory explanation, leading to an adjournment. The Magistrate emphasized that the police should do their "homework" and come prepared. Fifteen minutes later, the prosecution submitted a handwritten note as additional remand information, which the court accepted, allowing the hearing to continue.

Rajesh Shah Remanded and Granted Bail

Magistrate SP Bhosale remanded Shiv Sena leader Rajesh Shah to 14 days of judicial custody, noting that Section 105 of BNS was not applicable in his case. Advocate Sudhir Bhardwaj, representing the defense, argued that the charge of culpable homicide was not valid since Rajesh Shah was neither driving the car nor present at the scene. Subsequently, Rajesh Shah was granted bail. Rajesh Shah, his absconding son and primary suspect Mihir Shah, and their family driver Rajrishi Bidawat faced charges under BNS provisions, including Sections 105 and 238. According to the police, Mihir Shah was allegedly driving the BMW when it collided with the two-wheeler in Worli, resulting in the woman's death.

Sandeshkhali Case: Supreme Court Upholds CBI Probe Order, Rejects West Bengal’s Plea

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court dismisses West Bengal government's appeal against Calcutta High Court's decision to order a CBI probe into allegations of land grabbing and sexual assault in Sandeshkhali. In Sandeshkhali, an island in Sundarbans, tensions have escalated amid allegations of sexual assault and land grabbing involving local Trinamool Congress leaders. Sheikh Shahjahan and his associates are at the heart of these accusations, which have sparked outrage in West Bengal, particularly among women in the village. In February, a woman accused a Trinamool Congress leader of sexual assault at a nearby party office. Two days after she testified before a magistrate, her house was attacked in the dead of night.

Gurgaon: File Complaints Anywhere, WhatsApp Included

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

In a significant overhaul of criminal laws, Gurgaon's police force is adapting to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), replacing outdated frameworks with streamlined processes. These reforms aim to simplify the registration of FIRs, enhance evidence collection, and modernize courtroom procedures. Senior police officials and legal experts have welcomed the reforms, emphasizing the elimination of jurisdictional barriers that previously hindered complainants from filing reports. Under BNSS, individuals can now lodge 'zero FIRs' or 'E-FIRs' at any police station or through digital mediums like WhatsApp. This change allows for swift action, requiring complainants to visit the relevant police station within 72 hours to formalize their complaint. "For cases carrying a punishment between three to seven years, preliminary inquiries can now be conducted by the station in-charge within 14 days, subject to approval from a senior officer," explained Siddhant Jain, DCP (south Gurgaon). While designed to expedite the process, some legal experts caution that this provision could potentially delay investigations unnecessarily. The introduction of mandatory video recording during arrests and crime scene investigations underlines another significant shift. Forensic teams are now mandated to conduct on-site investigations for cases involving severe penalties. This enhancement, despite concerns about resource constraints, is expected to bolster conviction rates by providing concrete evidence. Video evidence, a cornerstone of the new laws, must be meticulously documented and presented in court. Kuldeep Singh, DCP (NIT), Faridabad, highlighted the implementation of these measures, emphasizing their future integration into the e-Sakshya app for streamlined judicial access. Moreover, BNSS empowers law enforcement to detain individuals violating directives for up to 24 hours, with subsequent judicial review under Section 172(2). This provision has sparked debates among legal circles regarding its potential misuse and the broad scope of offenses it covers. The implementation of BNS and BNSS marks a pivotal moment for Gurgaon's law enforcement, ushering in a new era of efficiency and accountability. While these reforms promise to simplify legal procedures and enhance investigative rigor, ongoing discussions among stakeholders will be crucial to refining their application and ensuring equitable justice delivery.

Is Breaking A Promise To Marry Crime In India? Exploring New Criminal Law

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

India's legal landscape has been stirred by a new provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)- the New Criminal Law, replacing the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC), which has sparked widespread debate and concern. Section 69 of the BNS, nestled within "offences against women and children," has introduced stringent penalties for men who engage in sexual intercourse after deceitfully promising marriage without any intention of fulfilling it. The contentious clause states, "Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine." Previously absent in the IPC, this provision has ignited criticism for potentially criminalizing consensual relationships that sour before marriage materializes. Critics argue that Section 69 may reinforce outdated notions of "protecting" women's chastity and endorse the idea that consensual sexual relations can retroactively be deemed non-consensual if marriage does not follow. Dr. Sandhya Ram, an Associate Professor at VM Salgaocar College of Law, Goa, highlighted concerns about the law's impact on women's autonomy and the presumption that women consent to sexual relations in exchange for promises like employment or marriage. Legal experts have raised practical challenges in implementing Section 69, particularly in proving the accused's "intent to marry" and distinguishing between a genuine promise and a broken commitment. Arvind Singh, a lawyer based in Ghaziabad, noted the subjectivity of proving intent and the difficulty in differentiating between a failed promise and a deliberate deceit. The law's enforcement also poses challenges, with questions about the admissibility of evidence such as messages, call recordings, and photographs to substantiate claims of deceitful promises. Moreover, critics fear that the provision could exacerbate social tensions, particularly in the context of contentious issues like "love jihad," a conspiracy theory alleging that Muslim men seduce Hindu women under false pretenses to convert them. As the legal and social ramifications of Section 69 continue in the New Criminal law unfolds, it remains a focal point of debate and scrutiny, prompting calls for clarity and caution in its application to avoid unintended consequences and safeguard individual rights within intimate relationships.

Allahabad HC Warns: ‘Majority Could Become Minority’ Due To Religious Conversion Gatherings

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Allahabad High Court has issued a stern warning regarding the ongoing unlawful conversions at religious gatherings, emphasizing the potential demographic impact on the majority population. The court's observations came during a hearing concerning allegations of forced conversions in Hamirpur district, Uttar Pradesh. The case involved accusations against Kailash, who allegedly transported villagers from Hamirpur to Delhi for a religious gathering aimed at converting them to Christianity. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, presiding over the case, denied the bail plea of Kashish under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, as reported by Bar and Bench. In its remarks, the court underscored the gravity of the situation, stating, "If this process is allowed to be carried out, the majority population of this country would be in the minority one day. Such religious congregations where conversions are taking place must be immediately stopped."

While hearing a case regarding unlawful conversion of religion, Allahabad High Court yesterday observed,"...If this process is allowed to be carried out, the majority population of this country would be in minority one day, and such religious congregation should be immediately…
— ANI UP/Uttarakhand (@ANINewsUP) July 2, 2024

The court highlighted the rampant nature of these activities across Uttar Pradesh, particularly targeting people from SC/ST castes and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. "It has come to the notice of this court in several cases that unlawful activity of conversion of people of SC/ST caste and other castes, including economically poor persons, into Christianity is being done at a rampant pace throughout Uttar Pradesh," the bench noted, according to ANI. The court also clarified the scope of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. However, it stressed that this right does not extend to converting individuals from one religion to another. "The word 'propagation' means to promote, but it does not mean to convert any person from his religion to another religion," the court elaborated. This case serves as a critical reminder of the legal boundaries surrounding religious activities and the need for vigilance to prevent unlawful conversions. The Allahabad High Court's ruling reinforces the importance of upholding constitutional provisions while protecting the demographic fabric of the nation.

Maharashtra Registers First FIR Under New Criminal Law

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Sawantwadi police in Sindhudurg district registered Maharashtra’s first FIR under the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS)- New Criminal Law on Monday. Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis announced the milestone in the state assembly, though he did not provide specifics about the case. The BNS, along with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)- New Criminal Law, came into effect on the same day, marking a historic overhaul of India's criminal justice system by replacing the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act, respectively. Fadnavis, who also holds the home portfolio, stated that the first FIR under the new laws was filed at 2:19 a.m. at the Sawantwadi police station. In addition to this legislative update, Fadnavis highlighted two landmark appointments in Maharashtra’s administration. Sujata Saunik has become the first woman to serve as the state’s chief secretary, a role she assumed on Sunday. Saunik, an IAS officer from the 1987 batch, makes history in the state’s 64-year legacy. Furthermore, Rashmi Shukla took charge as the first woman Director General of Police (DGP) in Maharashtra in January this year. Fadnavis also mentioned that the state legislature would pass a congratulatory motion to honor the Indian cricket team for their victorious campaign in the T20 World Cup, adding a note of celebration to the session. These announcements underscore a period of significant change and progress in Maharashtra, both in terms of legal reforms and the advancement of women in high-ranking positions.

Porsche Crash: Pune Police Plan Supreme Court Appeal For Teen’s Release

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Pune Police have been authorized by Maharashtra's Chief Minister to appeal to the Supreme Court against a Bombay High Court ruling that ordered the immediate release of a 17-year-old boy implicated in a fatal Porsche car accident. The High Court had declared the detention of the juvenile illegal, leading to his release from an observation home in Pune city. The incident, which occurred on May 19 in Kalyani Nagar, resulted in the deaths of two IT professionals when the Porsche, allegedly driven by the intoxicated teenager, collided with a two-wheeler. Initially granted bail on the same day by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), the boy was later remanded to an observation home following public outcry and subsequent legal challenges by the police. The High Court's decision, issued on June 25 in response to a petition by the boy's aunt claiming illegal detention, prompted immediate release and placement under the custody of his paternal aunt. Notably, the boy's parents and grandfather are currently detained in separate cases related to the incident, including allegations of tampering with blood samples and wrongful detention of a family driver. A Pune court is set to announce its decision on Monday regarding the bail applications of the boy's father and grandfather in connection with the driver's alleged kidnapping.

New Criminal Laws Take Effect on July 1: What Are The Key Changes?

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Starting Monday, July 1, India will see a transformative shift in its criminal justice system with the implementation of three new criminal laws that replace colonial-era legislations. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam will supplant the old Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Indian Evidence Act. These reforms aim to modernize the judicial process, enhance victim protection, and ensure timely justice. Key Highlights of the New Criminal Laws:

Expedited Judgments and Charge Framing:
- Criminal case judgments must be delivered within 45 days after the trial concludes.
- Charges must be framed within 60 days of the first hearing.
- State governments are required to implement witness protection schemes to ensure the safety and cooperation of witnesses.
Support for Rape Victims:
- Statements from rape victims will be recorded by a female police officer in the presence of the victim’s guardian or relative.
- Medical reports must be completed within seven days.
Enhanced Protection for Women and Children:
- A new chapter addresses crimes against women and children, classifying buying or selling a child as a heinous crime with severe penalties.
- Gangrape of a minor can result in a death sentence or life imprisonment.
Addressing Abandonment and False Promises of Marriage:
- The law now includes punishments for cases where women are abandoned after being misled by false promises of marriage.
Rights and Support for Crime Victims:
- Victims of crimes against women are entitled to regular updates on their cases within 90 days.
- All hospitals are mandated to provide free first-aid or medical treatment to victims of crimes against women and children.
Transparency and Documentation:
- Both the accused and the victim are entitled to receive copies of the FIR, police report, charge sheet, statements, confessions, and other documents within 14 days.
- Courts are allowed a maximum of two adjournments to prevent unnecessary delays in case hearings.
Digital Reporting and Zero FIR:
- Incidents can now be reported via electronic communication, eliminating the need to visit a police station.
- The introduction of Zero FIR allows individuals to file a First Information Report at any police station, regardless of jurisdiction.
Rights of the Arrested:
- Arrested persons have the right to inform a person of their choice about their situation, ensuring they receive immediate support.
- Arrest details will be prominently displayed in police stations and district headquarters for easy access by families and friends.
Mandatory Forensic Involvement:
- Forensic experts are now required to visit crime scenes for serious offences and collect evidence.
Inclusive Definition of Gender and Victim Statements:

The definition of "gender" now includes transgender people.
For certain offences against women, victim statements should be recorded by a woman magistrate when possible.
If unavailable, a male magistrate must record the statement in the presence of a woman.
Statements related to rape must be recorded through audio-video means.

These comprehensive reforms mark a significant milestone in India's commitment to modernizing its criminal justice system, enhancing victim protection, and ensuring the timely delivery of justice. The changes are expected to provide a more transparent, inclusive, and efficient judicial process, setting a new standard for legal proceedings in the country.

Supreme Court Keeps NEET Counselling On Track, Sends Notice To NTA

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court has once again refused to halt the NEET-UG 2024 counselling amidst widespread controversy over alleged irregularities in the exam's administration. The apex court has notified the National Testing Agency. The Supreme Court has grouped the new petitions with existing ones and scheduled them for a hearing on July 8. On Thursday, the apex court paused proceedings in three high courts that are hearing petitions challenging the NEET-UG 2024 exam and calling for an independent investigation into alleged malpractices, including a paper leak and the awarding of grace marks. A vacation bench of Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti issued notice on four transfer petitions filed by the National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts NEET-UG, and 11 other petitions raising similar concerns. The matter was scheduled with a batch of pending cases on the same issue for a hearing on July 8. This is a developing story.

Arvind Kejriwal Gets Bail in Excise Policy Case On a Bail Bond of Rs 1 Lakh

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

In a recent development concerning Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Rouse Avenue court has allowed his bail application and granted him bail on a bail bond of Rs 1 lakh. This relates to the Delhi excise policy case, although specific details about the case were not provided in the query. Typically, bail bonds are required as a guarantee that the accused will comply with all conditions set by the court during the trial process. Arvind Kejriwal, a prominent figure in Indian politics and the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), has faced various legal challenges and controversies over the years. His bail in this case allows him to remain free pending further proceedings, although the specifics of the allegations against him and the nature of the case were not detailed in the information provided.

UGC NET exam cancelled: What Is Anti-cheating bill?

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Amid ongoing controversy over alleged irregularities during the medical entrance exam NEET, the Union Education Ministry on Wednesday, June 19, cancelled the UGC-NET 2024 after concerns about the exam's integrity were raised. The matter has been handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a thorough probe. Additionally, the ministry has sought a report from the Bihar Police's Economic Offences Unit regarding alleged irregularities in the conduct of the NEET-UG 2024 in Patna, with further action to be based on the report. In a shift from previous practices, this year's National Eligibility Test (NET) was conducted in pen-and-paper mode on a single day, June 18, with a record 11 lakh students registering. UGC-NET determines the eligibility of Indian nationals for junior research fellowships, assistant professorships, and PhD admissions in Indian universities and colleges. Exam irregularities come months after Anti-cheating bill The reports of alleged exam irregularities emerged just months after the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha passed the 'anti-cheating' bill to curb fraudulent practices like exam paper leaks in government recruitment exams. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill was approved by President Draupadi Murmu in February. The law aims to prevent leaks, malpractices, and organized fraud in exams like UPSC, SSC, NEET, JEE, and CUET. It stipulates severe punishments like unfair practices can result in imprisonment for three to five years and fines up to ₹10 lakh. Organized crimes involving examination authorities or service providers face harsher penalties, including imprisonment for five to ten years and fines starting at ₹1 crore. The law also empowers agencies to seize properties of institutions involved in organized exam fraud to recover examination costs. Investigations under the Act are to be conducted by officers of the rank of deputy superintendent of police or assistant commissioner of police. Union Minister Jitendra Singh emphasized the need for the law, noting that paper leaks and organized cheating have compromised the interests of many students, leading to test cancellations. He highlighted the involvement of organized crime groups using impersonation and solver gangs, underscoring the bill's role in deterring such activities to protect the future of millions of aspiring youths.

UGC-NET & NEET-UG Controversies: Exam Entrances Embroiled In Debate

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The ongoing controversy surrounding entrance-level exams continues to develop, with the Ministry of Education recently declaring the cancellation of the University Grants Commission-National Eligibility Test (UGC-NET) examination. This decision, announced on Wednesday night, comes just a day after countless students nationwide took the exam. The ministry's latest move further intensifies the ongoing NEET-UG dispute. Let's delve into the current situation and anticipate what might happen next. What does the UGC-NET exam entail, and who is responsible for its administration? The UGC-NET exam, known as the National Eligibility Test, is administered to assess the eligibility of Indian citizens for roles as assistant professors and junior research fellowships in universities and colleges nationwide. It also serves as a criterion for admission to PhD programs. Additionally, it determines eligibility for various fellowships under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and the Ministry of Minorities Affairs. As per the UGC-NET official website, candidates seeking these fellowships must apply for and pass this examination. The National Testing Agency (NTA) conducts the exam, typically in a Computer Based Test (CBT) format, twice a year in June and December. While NTA has been managing the test in CBT mode since 2018 on behalf of the UGC, this year's exam was conducted in a pen-and-paper format. Why was the exam called off? The June exam took place on Tuesday (18 June) in OMR (pen and paper) format in two sessions across India. The decision to cancel the exam was made late Wednesday night (19 June) following advice from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, citing concerns about potential compromises to the examination's integrity. The National Cyber Crime Threat Analytics Unit of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs investigated the situation. "These inputs suggest that the integrity of the aforementioned examination may have been compromised," stated the education ministry in a press release. “To ensure the highest level of transparency and sanctity of the examination process, the Ministry of Education, Government of India has decided that the UGC-NET June 2024 Examination be cancelled,” it added. https://twitter.com/EduMinOfIndia/status/1803470271208124784 The exam comprises two papers: a common one for all candidates and a subject-specific paper related to their specialization. With the cancellation affecting all participants, it suggests that the alleged "compromise" may be connected to the common paper. However, the government's statement lacks specifics on the nature of the issue. How many candidates will be impacted? The exam saw participation from nine lakh candidates at 1,205 centers across 317 cities. According to the NTA, a total of 11,21,225 candidates registered, including 6,35,587 females, 4,85,579 males, and 59 third-gender candidates, marking an increase from the UGC-NET December 2023 exam which had 9,45,872 applicants. Of the registered candidates, 81% appeared for the exam, a rise from the 73.6% attendance recorded in the December exam. UGC Chairman M Jagadesh Kumar shared on X, "NTA has successfully conducted UGC-NET June 2024, determining eligibility for (i) 'award of Junior Research Fellowship and appointment as Assistant Professor', (ii) 'appointment as Assistant Professor and admission to Ph.D.', and (iii) 'admission to Ph.D. only' in 83 subjects in OMR (Pen and Paper) format across two shifts (09:30 AM to 12:30 Noon and 03:00 PM to 06:00 PM)." https://twitter.com/mamidala90/status/1803079620612292944 Students will undergo a re-examination, details of which will be communicated separately, according to the education ministry. The ministry emphasized its commitment to upholding the integrity of exams and safeguarding students' interests. As of now, no specific date has been announced for the rescheduled test. What is the next step in the case? The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) will launch an investigation into the alleged compromise of the exam. Although there have been reports of a leaked exam paper, the education ministry has not disclosed specifics. The cancellation of UGC-NET marks the first instance of a centrally conducted public exam being called off following the introduction of an anti-paper leak law earlier this year. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, enacted in February 2024, stipulates imprisonment ranging from three to five years and fines up to Rs 10 lakh for individuals engaging in unfair practices. This law is expected to be invoked in this case, as per sources cited by The Indian Express. How have people responded to the government's decision? Following the cancellation announcement, Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra condemned the government's perceived laxity and called for accountability. In a post on X, she expressed concerns about the impact of the government's alleged laxity and corruption on the youth. She questioned whether the education minister would take responsibility for the canceled exams and the feared irregularities associated with them. https://twitter.com/priyankagandhi/status/1803476538165543195 Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi criticized the National Testing Agency (NTA) for its repeated failure to conduct national examinations fairly, citing it as evidence of incompetence. She emphasized the impact on students who diligently prepare for these exams, highlighting the mental pressure they endure. Chaturvedi stressed the need for accountability from both the government and the NTA, stating that cancellation alone is not a solution. On the other hand, BJP leader Amit Malviya defended the government's decision to proactively cancel the NET exam. He mentioned that the decision was made after reports of compromise were received by the UGC, leading to a CBI probe. Malviya also assured protection of students' interests and promised action in the NEET(UG) exam based on the report from the Economic Offences Unit of the Bihar Police. What is the NEET-UG dispute about? The NEET-UG (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Undergraduate) controversy centers around the entrance exam held annually for students seeking admission to undergraduate medical courses in India's medical institutions. This exam, like UG-NET, is overseen by the NTA. The exam took place on 5 May, with results announced on 4 June. Subsequently, students raised concerns about a leaked question paper and the awarding of grace marks to over 1,500 candidates, an unusually high number achieving perfect scores. Notably, 67 students scored 720 marks, a significant increase compared to previous years, where only a few achieved perfect scores. Allegations surfaced that six of the top scorers had appeared for the exam at the same center in Haryana. The issue reached the Supreme Court, leading to a decision for a retest for 1,563 students who received grace marks, with the option to retain their original scores if they choose not to participate. Amid the paper leak allegations, four individuals were arrested in Bihar, including a candidate who admitted to receiving the question paper a day before the exam. On Thursday, Union Home Minister Amit Shah convened a meeting with Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, Health Minister J P Nadda, and other officials to discuss the NEET-UG exam-related FIRs, particularly in Bihar. The controversy has sparked a confrontation between the Opposition and the government, with the Congress calling for a nationwide protest on 21 June.

With Great Influence Comes Great Responsibility-India’s take on Influencers Advertisement

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Influencer marketing is experiencing rapid growth, but it's not without its hurdles. The content of influencer advertisements can vary in nature, ranging from authentic and unbiased to commercially driven. Consequently, distinguishing between genuine digital content and sponsored promotions has become increasingly challenging for consumers, blurring the lines between the two. The issue of misleading advertising by influencers is widespread globally, prompting countries to implement strict measures to address it. Recently, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of influencers acting responsibly while endorsing products in advertisements. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission identified a significant issue regarding the lack of disclosure and compliance with legal requirements in influencer advertising. It states that among 118 social media influencers investigated, a staggering 81 percent were found to be potentially violating Australian advertising laws by creating posts that could be deemed misleading. With the tripled market size, reaching a record of 24 billion U.S. dollars in 2024 based on the Statista report of Global influencer marketing value 2016-2024, the widespread concern about transparency and adherence to regulations in influencer marketing across different jurisdictions is of pertinent concern. For instance, the United States has taken punitive actions against businesses and influencers for failing to disclose endorsements adequately. Teami was fined $15.2 million for making unverified health claims and not disclosing paid endorsements by celebrities. The Federal Trade Commission criticized Warner Bros for a marketing campaign where online influencers were paid to promote video games without disclosing known bugs and glitches. Additionally, DJ Khaled and Floyd Mayweather Jr. faced penalties from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for promoting Centra Tech without disclosing that it was a paid advertisement. India has also been proactive in this regard, as evidenced by the case of finfluencer Mohammad Nasiruddin Ansari, known as the "baap of chart," who was fined Rs 17.2 crore by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in 2023 for misleading investors through false information and inducements to purchase his courses and workshops. Regulation Governing Influencer Advertisements In India

Misleading Advertisement Guidelines

The Consumer Protection Authority under Section 18 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 issued the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022. The guidelines are comprehensive in nature and have an objective to combat misleading and false advertisements for protection of consumer interest. These guidelines expand the scope of Consumer Protection Act 2019 that sets the general scope for prevention of misleading advertisements. The Misleading Advertisement Guidelines have broadened the scope of misleading advertisement. They apply to all advertisements regardless of form, format or medium. Penalty: In case there is a non-compliance with the Misleading Advertisements Guidelines the penalty of up to INR 10 lakh can be imposed upon the manufacturers, advertisers,and endorsers for issuance of misleading advertisements as per the provisions that are mentioned under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Furthermore, if there is a subsequent contravention the penalty may impose up to INR 50 lakh. Additionally, prohibition can be placed on the endorser of a misleading advertisement from making any endorsement for up to 1 year and for subsequent contravention, prohibition can extend up to 3 years.

Endorsement Know How’s

In January 2023, the Department of Consumer Affairs unveiled the 'Endorsement Know-hows,' outlining disclosure obligations for celebrities, influencers, and virtual influencers on social media.In August 2023, the department issued supplementary guidelines for qualified health sector professionals or health influencers.The main purpose of Endorsement knows- hows is for ensuring that audiences are not misled by influencers and there is a compliance with the the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the rules/guidelines made thereunder.

Who to disclose? ‘Individuals/groups who have access to an audience and the power to affect their audiences’ purchasing decisions or opinions about a product, service, brand or experience, because of the influencer ' s/celebrity ' s authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with their audience.’

Endorsers are further divided into three sub categories –

*Celebrities*	Famous personalities, including but not limited to the entertainment or sports industry who have the power to affect the decisions or opinions of their audience.
*Influencer*	Creators who advertise products and services with a strong influence on the purchasing decisions or opinions of their audience.
*Virtual Influencers*	Fictional computer generated ‘people’ or avatars who have realistic characteristics, features and personalities of humans, and behave in a similar manner as influencers.

Material Connection Under the Know – Hows mandate the disclosures are made when there is material connection such as Monetary or other compensation; Free products with or without any conditions attached, including discounts and gifts; Contest and sweepstakes entries; Trips or hotel stays; Media barters; Coverage and awards; or Any family, personal or employment relationship is established between an endorser and an advertiser. The connection should affect the credibility or weight of the representation that is made by the endorser. This helps consumers in making informed decisions.

If an endorser purchases a product with their own funds and discusses them based solely on personal experience, without any material connection to the advertiser, disclosure is not necessary. (c) How to disclose

*Hard to Miss*	Disclosures should be placed in the endorsement message in such a manner that they are clear, prominent and extremely hard to miss. Disclosures should not be mixed with a group of hashtags or links.
*Endorsement in a Picture*	Disclosures should be superimposed over the image enough for viewers to notice.
*Endorsement in a Video*	Disclosures should be placed in the video and not just in the description. Disclosures should be made in both audio and video format.
*Endorsement in a live stream*	Disclosures should be displayed continuously and prominently during the entire stream.
*Simple and Clear*	Simple and clear language should be used. On limited space platforms like Twitter, terms such as 'XYZ Ambassador' (where XYZ is a brand) are also acceptable.
*Terms Allowed*	'advertisement' or 'ad' 'sponsored' 'paid promotion' or 'paid'
*Language*	Disclosures and endorsements should be in the same language.
*Platform Tools*	Separate disclosures shall be made apart from platform disclosure tools.

(d) Due Diligence by Endorser Endorsers are recommended to use and experience the services. Celebrities /influencers are advised always to review and satisfy themselves that the advertiser is in a position to substantiate the claims made in the advertisement. (e) Non-Compliance Endorsers are liable for strict action under the law if they fail to disclose any material connection or noncompliance of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and Rules made thereunder. In August 2023, the Department of Consumer Affairs (DoCA) introduced additional guidelines outlining incremental disclosure or disclaimer obligations for qualified professionals within the health sector or health influencers. These guidelines likely aim to enhance transparency and accountability in health-related communications, ensuring that individuals receive accurate information and are aware of any potential biases or conflict of interest. III. ASCI Guidelines The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), a self regulatory body has issued the Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media on June 1, 2021. The main emphasis of these Influencer Guidelines revolves around ensuring clear disclosure within promotional content and emphasizing the significance of conducting thorough due diligence regarding the advertised product. In lieu of the same, it is pertinent to note that, ASCI's annual report for F2023, it was found that 97 percent of the celebrities featured in ads did not provide evidence of complying with the due diligence mandates outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, looking at the surge in unregistered 'finfluencers' providing financial advice on social media platforms has sparked significant concerns within the securities market SEBI has partnered with the ASCI to address these malpractices and released a consultation paper on August 25, 2023 to tackle the issue of unregistered finfluencers. Conclusion Influencer marketing has emerged as a powerful tool for brands globally, with influencers capable of shaping consumer behavior through short content, sometimes as brief as 15 or 30 seconds. It's crucial to monitor how influencers operate and profit commercially. In the Marico Limited v Abhijit Bhansali ((2020(81) PTC 244(Bom) case, the Bombay High Court acknowledged social media influencers as a growing group with significant credibility and a large following. The court emphasized the importance of holding influencers accountable due to their ability to sway audiences and the trust they enjoy from the public. [caption id="attachment_363525" align="alignnone" width="227"] Suphla Singh[/caption] (Suphla Singh is law associate at law firm - Ark legal)

AI VOICE CLONING – Unleashed

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

In an age where technology seems to blur the lines between reality and fiction, voice cloning emerges as a potent example of our evolving digital landscape. Voice cloning, the process of replicating a person’s voice using advanced algorithms, has garnered both fascination and concern worldwide. There are very diverse applications of AI voice cloning such as preserving legacy by keeping the voices of your loved ones alive for the generations to come, it feels like they never left. Also, considering medical implications, it provides voice for those who are losing it due to illness or disability, Apple’s iOS 17 introduced voice cloning to aid such people. Its creativity has no limit, it provides people with an immersive experience through cloning whichever voice they want to narrate them a bedtime story or in audio games, custom virtual assistants provide an immersive digital interaction. Even, song producers clone the voice of actors or singers in order to use them, YouTube’s Dream Track is a feature which creates song clips featuring AI vocals with the permission from the pop stars. It is very fascinating to use such kind of technological magic to innovate using your creativity. But, the freely accessible Software’s like these, eventually lead to great modern day Cyber-Heists! All it Takes is- Few Dangerous Seconds. THAT’S IT! (a) Imagine your child crying on the phone and asking for help, any parent would panic and do as the daughter say, but in actual it is not the daughter on the phone, instead it’s the cloned voice which is being heard by the parent, similar case happened with Sarita Khanna, the middle-aged wife of a businessman from MP’s Khargone, she got a call from an unknown number saying her daughter is kidnapped and demanded for Rs. 3 lakhs, and the daughter was heard crying on the phone, she was tricked in sending the money. Whereas, her daughter was safe and sound at her hostel. (b) In another example, a Lucknow-based government official received a call from an unknown number claiming that his son, who is studying in Bengaluru, had been caught with narcotics and was in police custody, demanding Rs.1 lakh to release him; the boy’s voice could be heard saying “papa mujhe bacha lo”. After hearing his son’s voice, he sent the money without thinking twice. (c) Another example is retired Coal India officer PS Radhakrishnan, who was duped into paying 40,000 rupees in response to a call from his old buddy of 40 years, Venu Kumar, who had contacted him after nearly a year of no communication to beg his assistance with an urgent financial transaction. Radhakrishnan stated the voice on the phone sounded exactly like him, and they talked for a long time, leading him to assume it was Venu Kumar himself; in reality, it was another AI-cloned voice working its intellect. (d) An unusual matter of fraud used an AI generated cloned audio to defraud a United Kingdom based energy firm of $243,000. According to the report from the Wall Street Journal, in March 2019, the fraudsters utilized a voice-cloning AI software to impersonate the voice of the chief executive of the firm’s Germany-based parent company in order to effectuate an illegal fund transfer. The Cybercriminals called the U.K. firm’s CEO posing as the CEO of the parent company. Then the attackers demanded for an urgent wire transfer to be made to a Hungary-based supplier and the U.K. firm’s CEO was guaranteed a reimbursement. After the money was transferred, it was forwarded to an account in Mexico and then other locations, making it difficult to identify the fraudsters. How to protect yourself? If bad actors are using voice cloning to mimic voices and commit crimes, it is important for us to stay vigilant. There are some common signs and red flags that you can look out for: 1. If you are answering a call from an unknown number, let the caller speak first, if you say as much as “Hello? Who is this?” They could use that audio sample to impersonate you. 2. If you receive a call or message from someone you know, but they make unusual or out-of-character requests, it could be a sign of voice cloning. For example, if a friend or family member suddenly asks for sensitive information or money, proceed with caution and verify their identity through other means. 3. Voice cloning technology may not perfectly replicate the original voice, leading to subtle inconsistencies. Pay attention to any noticeable changes in tone, pitch, or pronunciation that are out of character for the person you’re communicating with. 4. Cloned voices may have lower audio quality or exhibit artifacts. If the voice on the other end of the call sounds distorted, robotic, or unnatural, it could be a sign of voice cloning. 5. If the background noise during a call seems inconsistent with the expected environment of the caller, it could indicate a cloned voice. For example, if you hear noises that don’t match the typical sounds of a workplace or home, it may be a cause for suspicion. 6. Voice cloning scammers may try to create a sense of urgency or pressure to manipulate you into providing sensitive information or taking immediate action. Be cautious if the caller insists on quick decisions, especially if it involves financial matters. 7. Voice cloning scammers often use caller ID spoofing techniques to make it appear as if the call is coming from a trusted source or a legitimate organization. If you receive a call from a known number but the voice or the content of the conversation seems suspicious, consider contacting the person or organization directly using a verified contact method to confirm the call’s legitimacy. 8. Voice cloning attempts may involve the use of pre-recorded responses or scripts. If the person on the other end of the call consistently provides robotic or repetitive responses that do not directly address your questions or concerns, it could be an indication of a cloned voice. If someone becomes a victim of such a scam, they may find recourse under the following sections among others: Under the Information Technology Act, 2000: =Section 66C: Identity theft and can be applicable if the fraud involves the deceptive use of someone’s voice identity. =Section 66D: Cheating by personation using a computer resource and can be relevant if the fraudster impersonates another person using technology. Additionally, relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 may apply: =Section 419: If the fraudster impersonates someone else to deceive the victim. =Section 420: If the scam involves deceiving someone to transfer money or property. Way Forward Law enforcement agencies, technology companies, telcos and research institutions need to collaborate to develop advanced voice authentication and anti-spoofing techniques. These techniques should aim to identify synthesized or cloned voices and differentiate them from genuine human voices. As for integrating these technologies into phones or communication platforms, some progress has been made in implementing call authentication frameworks. For example, the STIR/SHAKEN framework has been introduced in some countries to verify the authenticity of caller IDs and detect spoofed calls. While these frameworks primarily focus on verifying caller ID information, they can indirectly help in identifying potential voice cloning attempts. India too is working towards adopting a multi-pronged approach by introducing the Calling Name Presentation (CNAP) service which will notify call receivers about the identity proof linked with a SIM card being used by the caller. Another such approach is the vision of establishing the National Cyber Security Agency (NCSA) which will serve as a centralized organization responsible for addressing digital frauds. NCSA, shall also invest into developing such voice analysis algorithms and machine learning models that can analyze voice patterns, acoustic characteristics and linguistic markers to detect anomalies that may indicate AI voice cloning. These technologies can be integrated into communication platforms or phone apps to provide real-time detection and alerts for suspicious calls. Khushbu Jain is a practicing advocate in the Supreme Court and founding partner of the law firm, Ark Legal. She can be contacted on X: @advocatekhushbu and Ninad Barge intern at Ark Legal.

Legal Trouble For Jolly LLB 3: Accusations of Mocking Judiciary

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

As Bollywood stars Akshay Kumar and Arshad Warsi engage in the filming of their upcoming movie "Jolly LLB 3" in Ajmer, the comedy project has encountered legal troubles. A complaint has been filed against the film's team in a court in Ajmer, alleging disrespect towards the judiciary system. Chandrabhan Singh Rathod, the President of Ajmer District Bar Association, lodged the complaint, stating that the franchise ridicules the Indian judiciary system, leading to a negative portrayal and damaging its reputation.

What is The Complaint about?

Chandrabhan reportedly lodged the complaint against the producer, director, and actors of the film, accusing them of mocking lawyers and judges. He stated in the complaint that the film portrays these legal professionals in an "inappropriate" and "humorous and indecent" manner. According to the report, Chandrabhan mentioned that this decision was made based on the content of the previous "Jolly LLB" films. He expressed concern that the filmmakers and actors show a lack of respect for the country's judiciary system and its constitutional dignity. The ongoing shooting of "Jolly LLB 3" in Ajmer, including areas like the DRM office, was cited as an example of this disrespect. Chandrabhan highlighted specific scenes such as kicking a lawyer, chasing with a stick, depicting a judge consuming 'gutkha', and showing money transactions as not reflective of the reality of the legal system and not in line with the dignity of the judiciary. Additionally, the Ajmer District Bar Association has filed an application in the court of Civil Judge Ajmer North to halt the film's shooting and has requested a notice be issued. The case is scheduled for a hearing today.

Jolly LLB 3: All You Need To Know

Akshay and Arshad have resumed their roles as lawyers in the upcoming film, with Subhash Kapoor returning as the director. The filming commenced in Ajmer on April 29, and the actors shared a humorous video to mark the beginning of the shoot. Akshay captioned the video with excitement about the project's continuation and hinted at an entertaining journey ahead.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Akshay Kumar (@akshaykumar)

The first "Jolly LLB" movie premiered in 2013, followed by its sequel in 2017. In this third installment, Akshay and Arshad are expected to portray conflicting lawyer characters, while Saurabh Shukla will reprise his role as a judge.

“Go Hang Yourself”, Not an Abetment of Suicide: Karnataka HC

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Karnataka High Court has rejected the classification of the phrase "go hang yourself" as an abetment of suicide, acknowledging the intricacies involved in determining such culpability. This decision arose from a case where a man was accused of provoking a priest's suicide by allegedly uttering these words during a conversation about the priest's purported relationship with the man's wife. The defence argued that the statement was a product of distress upon discovering the alleged affair, and the priest's decision to take his own life was influenced by the affair becoming public rather than solely by the accused's words. Conversely, the prosecution contended that the priest's suicide was a result of the accused's threatening language regarding exposing the affair. However, the court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, emphasized that such statements alone might not amount to abetment to suicide. It acknowledged the various factors contributing to the priest's suicide, including his alleged extramarital relationship despite his role as a father and priest. Recognizing the intricacies of human psychology, the court highlighted the challenge of understanding the human mind and declined to label the accused's statement as abetment to suicide. As a result, the court dismissed the case, underscoring the complexity of human behaviour and the limitations in fully comprehending the motivations behind such tragic events.

Registration Without Ceremony Not A Valid Marriage Under Hindu Marriage Act: SC

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955's legal requirements and significance for Hindu marriages has been clarified by the Supreme Court in a recent verdict. The Court emphasised that certain rites and ceremonies, such saptapadi, must be followed in a Hindu marriage and that recording these ceremonies is essential in the event of a disagreement. Judges Augustine George Masih and BV Nagarathna emphasised: "A Hindu marriage, to be legally valid, necessitates the observance of prescribed rites or ceremonies, including saptapadi if included. Proof of these ceremonies becomes imperative in case of disputes. Without the performance of requisite ceremonies, a marriage cannot be recognized under the Act, as per Section 7." The Court explained that although marriage registration under Section 8 makes the union easier to prove, it does not formally validate the marriage if it is not performed in accordance with Section 7, which outlines the requirements for a legally recognised Hindu wedding ceremony. "The legitimacy granted by registration under Section 8 is nullified by the lack of a marriage ceremony as defined by Section 7. Registration confirms that a Hindu marriage is lawful, provided that the requirements of Section 7 are followed. Without the solemnization requirement of Section 7, a "Hindu marriage" cannot be established by just meeting the requirements of Section 5. Highlighting that unregistered Hindu marriages lacking proper ceremonies are void, the Court stressed: "The Registrar cannot register a marriage if it hasn't followed customary practices. Thus, registration under Section 8 won't validate a marriage without proper solemnization. A marriage certificate confirms the legality only when the marriage ceremony under Section 7 has occurred." The Court frowned upon casual marriages devoid of customary rituals, denoting them as detrimental to societal norms: "We discourage expedient marriages without adhering to customs, like the present instance where parties sought registration before actual solemnization. Marriage isn't a commercial transaction but a sacred union forming the bedrock of society." The Court's observations stem from a case where a wife sought divorce proceedings' transfer, later jointly declaring their marriage void due to unfulfilled customs. Additionally, the Court underscored the spiritual and societal significance of Hindu marriage, urging adherence to rites and ceremonies outlined in the Act: "Hindu marriage, a revered sacrament, isn't a frivolous occasion but a cornerstone of family and community harmony. Marriage ceremonies must be meticulously conducted to honor this sanctity." Advocate Dhruv Gupta represented the petitioner during the proceedings.

“Cannot Control Polls”: Supreme Court on VVPAT Case

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court emphasized its role as not being the authority over elections or the Election Commission, stating it cannot dictate the Commission's operations. This statement was made during a hearing on petitions seeking comprehensive verification of votes cast on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with paper slips from the VVPAT system. The court, comprised of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, questioned the validity of acting solely on suspicion. In response to concerns raised by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms, the court indicated it couldn't alter individuals' predisposed perspectives. It underscored that its role wasn't to change preconceived notions. The petitions, amid Opposition's worries about the EVM voting system, aim to mandate verification of all votes on EVMs with VVPAT-generated paper slips. Currently, such verification occurs randomly for five EVMs per Assembly constituency. Previous hearings saw petitioners highlighting public trust issues and comparing with European countries reverting to ballot voting, but the court dismissed these comparisons, noting the unique challenges. The Election Commission asserted the current system's integrity. An EVM comprises a control unit, balloting unit, and is connected to a VVPAT machine for voter verification. The court sought clarifications on microcontrollers' re-programmability, with the Election Commission stating they can be programmed only once. However, Bhushan argued that the microcontrollers have re-programmable flash memory. The court acknowledged the Election Commission's technical report, emphasizing the limited flash memory's capacity. It questioned the possibility of loading malicious programs into the flash memory but emphasized its inability to issue mandates based solely on suspicion, reiterating its non-authoritative role over the Election Commission and elections.

Supreme Court: 9 Judge bench begins hearing on Article 39(b)

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

A nine-judge constitution bench appointed by the Supreme Court began hearing arguments today to decide whether privately held assets qualify as "material resources of the community" for the purposes of Article 39(b) of the Constitution. A group of petitions that were first filed in 1992 and were now being reviewed after more than 20 years were discussed by the bench, which was presided over by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprised of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih. The interpretation of Article 39(b), a Directive Principle of State Policy intended to guarantee the fair allocation of material resources for the common welfare, is the main topic of controversy. The petitions examine the constitutionality of Chapter-VIIIA, a modification pertaining to property acquisition that was made to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA) of 1976. These petitions' long judicial history—they have been heard by several benches since 1992—highlights how difficult it is to interpret Article 39(b). Significantly, there has been discussion about Justice Krishna Iyer's view, which holds that all resources, including those that are privately owned, are considered "material resources of the community." But Justice Untwalia's position contested it, and a seven-judge bench later reexamined it in 2002, giving rise to the current nine-judge bench hearing. The importance of Article 31C was emphasised during the hearing, especially in relation to how it interacts with Article 39(b). Although laws intended to implement the Directive Principles were initially exempt from judicial scrutiny under Article 31C, this interpretation was reexamined in the significant Kesavananda Bharati case. The court did, however, uphold the original constitutionality of Article 31C, acknowledging its function in defending legislation intended to achieve the objectives of Article 39(b) and (c). The bench examined the main features of Article 39(b), focusing on the definition of "ownership and control" in a broader sense and how that affects the distribution of resources. There was intense discussion and presentation of differing viewpoints about the question of whether resources that are privately owned should be classified as "material resources." The State of Karnataka Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. minority ruling by Justice Krishna Iyer drew criticism for its broad definition of "material resources" and its support for extensive redistribution. Concerns were expressed concerning the viability and practicality of this strategy, calling for a fair assessment of property rights in addition to redistribution goals. Aware of the historical relevance and legal nuances at play, the bench struggles to balance conflicting readings and prior decisions as the hearing goes on.

India’s judicial system entered a new era with the passage of recently passed criminal laws: CJI DY Chandrachud

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Chief Justice of India, Justice DY Chandrachud, remarked on Saturday that "the enactment of new criminal laws has propelled India's legal framework for criminal justice into the modern era." Speaking at a conference on India's Criminal Justice System hosted by the Ministry of Law and Justice, the CJI highlighted the crucial improvements aimed at safeguarding victim interests and streamlining the investigation and prosecution processes. "India is on the brink of a substantial overhaul of its criminal justice system with the imminent implementation of three new criminal laws. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam will replace the Indian Penal Code 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act 1872, respectively. These laws signify a pivotal moment for our society because no law impacts daily societal conduct like criminal law," he stated. Chandrachud underlined the moral compass of criminal law, grounded in the age-old harm principle, encapsulated by the adage, 'Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.' He emphasized the importance of procedural law in ensuring due process from initiating criminal proceedings to conviction, averting unjust charges and convictions. While addressing the Conference on India's Progressive Path in the Administration of the Criminal Justice System, Chandrachud stressed the evolving nature of laws and their implementation. He advocated for a proactive approach to embracing positive changes that cater to contemporary needs. "With the enactment of the new criminal laws, we anticipate identifying loopholes and areas requiring attention. Such discussions would be instrumental in enhancing the efficiency of our criminal justice systems. However, our analysis must prioritize justice with a focus on civil liberties, balancing the interests of victims and the accused," he added. Chandrachud reiterated the necessity for laws to address persistent issues such as delays in witness examination, trial conclusion, prison overcrowding, and the plight of undertrial prisoners. Regarding technological advancements and contemporary crime, Chandrachud acknowledged the challenges posed in crime investigation, evidence admission, prosecution, and justice delivery. He referenced American jurist Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, stating that laws must serve societal goals recognized by the community's governing authority. The three laws, namely the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, replace the previous criminal laws, with an effective date of July 1. The conference, attended by dignitaries including Minister of State for the Ministry of Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, and Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, aimed to highlight the key features of the three criminal laws and facilitate meaningful interactions through technical sessions and Q&A segments. Additionally, judges, advocates, academicians, law enforcement representatives, police officials, public prosecutors, district administration officials, and law students participated in the event.

Delhi HC Reserves Order on Kejriwal’s Plea for Daily Doctor Consultations via VC, Awaits Tihar’s Response

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Rouse Avenue Court deferred its decision on a petition submitted by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, seeking instructions for Tihar jail officials to administer insulin and permit him to consult doctors via video conferencing daily for 15 minutes due to his severe diabetes and fluctuating blood sugar levels. Special Judge Kaveri Baweja postponed the ruling until April 22, 2024, and instructed Tihar Jail Authorities to provide a detailed response by the following day. Arguments revealed concerns over Kejriwal's diet, with his legal team denying allegations of excessive mango consumption and asserting that his meals align with dietary guidelines. Kejriwal's plea highlighted his discontinued 'Insulin Reversal Programme' due to his arrest, emphasizing the need for insulin administration and proper medical care. Additionally, the plea criticized the Enforcement Directorate's accusations, alleging a lack of fairness and integrity in their conduct. The ED countered, accusing Kejriwal of intentionally consuming foods harmful to his health to gain sympathy in court. They cited medical staff's regular monitoring of Kejriwal's blood sugar levels and requested a comparison of his diet chart with actual meals served in jail since April 2, 2024.

Decoding Acting Chief Minister’s Arrest

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The structure, authority, and duties of State governments in India are outlined in the Constitution, drawing heavily from the parliamentary system adopted from Britain. Both the Central and State cabinets share similarities in their formal constitutional framework, despite their distinct roles and responsibilities. While the Central cabinet and State cabinets exhibit formal constitutional resemblances, their powers and functions diverge significantly. State ministers hold prominent positions within the State’s political hierarchy. The Chief Minister serves as the primary political liaison between their State and the Union Government. While this connection was particularly pronounced before 1967 during the Congress’s uncontested dominance, it still holds true today. Chief Ministers are regularly consulted by the Central Government as representatives of their States and hold ex officio positions in significant decision-making bodies like the National Development Council. Consequently, Chief Ministers are expected to wield considerable influence in national politics. Though their dominance in national politics might not be as pronounced as during the period following Nehru’s demise until the 1967 Election, this shift can be attributed to the decline of Congress’s unchallenged rule. Nevertheless, Chief Ministers, regardless of their party affiliation, continue to exert significant influence on the national political landscape. The arrest of political figures often serves as a focal point for debates surrounding the influence of central government in a democratic setup. The case of Arvind Kejriwal, a prominent figure in Indian politics and the Chief Minister of Delhi, offers a compelling lens through which to examine the intersection of power, governance, and legal processes. This essay delves into the complexities of the central government’s influence on Kejriwal’s arrest, highlighting the intricate dynamics at play. Political Context: Arvind Kejriwal, known for his anti-corruption activism and founding the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), rose to prominence as a challenger to the traditional political establishment. His tenure as the Chief Minister of Delhi has been marked by both achievements and controversies, reflecting the polarizing nature of his leadership. Amidst the political landscape dominated by ideological differences and power struggles, Kejriwal’s arrest became a flashpoint for wider debates on political vendetta and misuse of state machinery. Legal Proceedings: The legal framework governing the arrest and prosecution of public officials is intended to ensure accountability and uphold the rule of law . However, the manner in which these processes unfold can be influenced by political considerations. In Kejriwal’s case, allegations of corruption or misconduct may have triggered legal actions, but the timing and intensity of such actions raise questions about the impartiality and independence of investigative agencies. The arrest of Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi and a prominent political figure, ignited a legal conflict that reverberated through India’s political landscape. This incident underscored the intricate interplay between legal procedures, political motivations, and public perception. This essay delves into the legal conflict surrounding Kejriwal’s arrest, examining the complexities and implications of the case. Central Government’s Role: As the central government holds significant influence over law enforcement agencies and investigative bodies, its role in Kejriwal’s arrest cannot be overlooked. The nexus between political power and administrative machinery often blurs the lines between genuine law enforcement and politically motivated actions. The central government’s ability to initiate or influence investigations, allocate resources, and control key institutions can shape the trajectory of legal proceedings against political adversaries. Amidst the legal conflict, the judiciary emerged as a crucial arbiter, tasked with ensuring the fair administration of justice. Kejriwal’s legal team mounted vigorous defenses, challenging the validity of charges and seeking judicial intervention to safeguard his rights. Judicial rulings and legal precedents shaped the trajectory of the case, providing clarity on contentious legal issues and upholding constitutional principles. Public Perception and Media Narrative: The legal conflict surrounding Kejriwal’s arrest unfolded against the backdrop of intense media scrutiny and public discourse. The narrative surrounding the case was shaped by competing narratives, political affiliations, and media bias. Supporters of Kejriwal portrayed him as a victim of political persecution, while critics emphasized the need for accountability and adherence to the rule of law. Conclusion: The legal conflict in the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal epitomizes the complex intersection of law, politics, and public perception in India’s democratic framework. While legal procedures must be followed diligently to uphold the rule of law, the potential for political interference and selective targeting underscores the fragility of democratic institutions. As India navigates through such legal conflicts, ensuring the independence of the judiciary, safeguarding individual rights, and upholding constitutional principles remain imperative for the integrity of the legal system.

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 And Fintech: Cracking Labyrinth

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Introduction The latest edition of the “Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023” (“DPDPA”) builds itself from its antecedent, released in November 2022 (“2022 Bill”), implementing some tactical modifications while retaining all core concepts. With smaller key modifications made across the Data Protection Board, the more significant changes include the formation and constitution of the Data Protection Board[1] (“Board”) (which was earlier to be constituted ‘as may be prescribed’ by the Government), the power of the Central Government to make rules, and the circumstances under which entities can be exempted from the applicability of its provisions. Through this recent rendition, the law has set out robust notice and consent obligations, delineated permissible grounds for processing personal data without authorization, establishment of a Tribunal, and levied additional responsibilities on Data Fiduciaries[2] when managing data pertaining to minors, among additional rules and regulations. In addition to other alters, the DPDP Act includes broad definitions pertaining to the “Obligations of Notice and Consent”, defines the acceptable "Legitimate Uses" for processing personal data without explicit consent, creates an "Appellate Tribunal" for addressing complaints, and imposes more restrictive obligations on data fiduciaries when handling the personal data of minors. The DPDP specifically emphasizes on safeguarding personal data primarily of a 'digital' nature. A notable concern is on numerous requirements of the DPDPA that remain subject to determination by the Central Government. This scenario gives rise to concerns regarding the possibility of untainted and capricious rule-making. Government and its affinity with the pre-existing privacy framework Initially, it appears that the DPDP Act establishes a reciprocal relationship with the Government of India's wider regulations pertaining to information technology. The dimension concerning the solicitation of information is influenced by the interface between the IT Act [3] and the Information Technology (“Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code”) Rules, 2021. This linkage grants the Central Government the authority to seek information from the Board, as well as from fiduciaries and intermediaries.[4] Fortunately, the lack of precise particulars suggests an examination of the extent, objective, and protective measures linked to this request for information, requiring adherence to the legal principles as expounded in the Puttaswamy judgment. The Act imposes extra duties on 'significant data fiduciaries'[5] beyond those indispensable of data fiduciaries. The central government will issue a separate notification of SDFs based on requirements like the amount and severity of the personal data processed, the threat to the rights of the Data Principal, the impact on India's sovereignty and integrity, the threat to electoral democracy, security of the State, and public order. A single factor (such as the risk to the rights of a data principal) or a combination of factors (such as the volume and sensitivity of personal data processed) could lead to the classification of payment applications processing a high volume of payments or telecom service providers as SDFs. Moreover, there appears to be substantial evidence indicating a correlation between the DPDP Act and the Information Technology (“Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public”) Rules, 2009, thereby aligning data protection considerations with the governance of computer resource accessibility. The said arrangement involves the centre exercising its authority, in accordance with established procedures and principles of right to be heard[6], to direct agencies or intermediaries to restrict access to information, with the aim of protecting public interests.[7] The convergence of these mechanisms provides a strong approach to address the risks associated with non-compliance, while also ensuring a comprehensive plan for implementation. DPDP and Fintech: A Reverie? Over the past few decades, India's financial services sector has undergone a remarkable change, turning into a dynamic and quickly expanding business that is essential to the development of the country's economy. This industry provides a broad range of services, such as capital markets, banking, insurance, and non-banking financial institutions, all of which have a major impact on the stability and growth of the nation's economy. Financial services in India are regulated by four main regulators- the Reserve Bank of India ("RBI") supervises commercial banks, urban cooperative banks, financial institutions, and non-banking finance companies. The Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI") controls capital markets, mutual funds, and other intermediaries. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India ("IRDAI") regulates the insurance industry. The Pension Funds Regulatory and Development Authority ("PFRDA") regulates the pension industry in India. The DPDP Act aims to create a balance between promoting innovation in the Fintech sector and safeguarding persons' personal data. While acknowledged the DPDP Act proposes a plan that is at variance with the current Fintech industry framework—that is, the Guidelines on Digital Lending (or "GDL") issued by the Reserve Bank of India (or "RBI") in 2022. The regulated entity bears the responsibility of safeguarding a customer's DPD under the GDL. In addition, once a customer's DPD is acquired, this organization must make sure that the tech operates in a way that protects and conforms with privacy laws. Since the DPDP Act was introduced, the main obstacle that the Fintech industry has been facing is the inability to identify whether a regulated entity or Fintech operate is a data processor, data fiduciary, or both. The definitions of data processors and data fiduciaries under the DPDP Act provides wider ambit which assures that both regulated entity and fintech operates falls within its ambit as the objective of both regulated entity and fintech operate is the determination of the collection and method of processing the DPD. Therefore, before collecting a customer's DPD, fintech companies will now need to clearly state the nature of the relationship between the regulated entity and the fintech operates and their related obligations. However, when the liability is to be determined then it seems that DPDP contradicts with the GDL as DPDP holds both fintech operates and regulated entities accountable for any violations in the DPD's governance, while the GDL solely held regulated entities accountable. The another distinction is the procedure for collecting DPD under the GDL and the DPDP Act. The DPDP Act is quiet on the subject of data localization or storage requirements, however regulated entities are required by the GDL that data acquired is stored on servers situated in India. The DPDP Act additionally extends the geographical reach of the GDL by governing the collection of DPD in India or in an offshore jurisdiction. The extraterritoriality of the legislation's application appears to be the rationale for the DPDP Act's silence, but this leaves Fintech companies in an uncertain legal situation. Critique on DPDP However, the DPDPA is not without its critique. Some might argue that it is too restrictive and that it will stifle innovation. Others might argue that the DPDPA does not go far enough to protect the privacy of individuals – given the power and discretion granted to the Central Government with regard to the processing of personal data. It is now to be seen how the Central Government introduces rules through delegated legislation, in order to regulate those aspects of the DPDPA that are yet to be prescribed. Given the significant usage of the phrase ‘as may be prescribed’ throughout the DPDPA, the Central Government should ideally establish a uniform process surrounding the release of these multiple rules, including holding regular stakeholder consultations with stakeholders from across the industry. MeitY has, prior to this, seen great success in holding such stakeholder consultations, as was also evident in the introduction of the amendments to the Information Technology (“Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code”) Rules, 2021 for online gaming in April 2023. The rules would take all industry practicalities into consideration, ensuring a robust data protection regime that caters to the benefit of the entire technology industry in India. Lastly, it’s crucial to provide a transition period that allows businesses sufficient time to put necessary processes in order and adhere to the requirements of the DPDPA. With the onset of newer and stricter obligations, the data fiduciaries may have significant work to be done. Implementing the DPDP without a transition window could be catastrophic, resulting in large scale non-compliance. Provision of a sufficient transition period will ensure that businesses can make the necessary adjustments smoothly, in line with the requirements outlined in the DPDPA. The Way Forward The DPDP Act is a significant step towards ensuring and safeguarding the personal data in India. This step was long overdue, given the internet consumers in India, the data generated by them, as well as the country’s role in cross-border trades and investments. While the current laws protect the rights of data principals, require reporting of incidents, impose obligations on the data processes, etc., the regulatory frameworks on those are neither complete nor concrete. The DPDPA will overhaul the framework and repeal and replace the current laws. It is also a significant step forward in protecting the privacy of individuals in India. It creates a more transparent and accountable framework for the processing of personal data, empowering people with more autonomy over their personal data. The DPDPA will also help to protect individuals from the misuse of the personal data, and ensure greater capability to enforce their individual rights in relation to their personal data. [1] Section 8 (5), Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. [2] Section 10 (2), Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. [3] Section 2(1)(w), Information Technology Act, 2000. [4] Section 36, Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. [5] Section 10 (1), Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. [6] Section 37, Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. [7] Section 37(2), Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

The Twilight Saga & Arbitration: A Space Dispute Settlement Conundrum

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

In a general sense, when we observe the space industry paradigm, it becomes apparent that owing to the commercialization of space, there has been an upsurge in the global economy. Assessing industry valuations over the past decade indicates that the global space economic value reached 424 billion US dollars in 2020, marking a 70% financial growth in just 10 years since 2010. We witnessed significant financial growth when the space industry was nascent. At the present stage, it is estimated that in the coming years, the space industry could potentially experience an economic boost worth 1 trillion US dollars. With progress and development in the space industry comes a 'kettle of fish' that is insoluble in its own terms, such as the upsurge of novel space-related disputes and revolutionary challenges, which this article deals with in detail. The article focuses on two major challenges: firstly, the existing area of space-related disputes and where new disputes are expected to arise in the future; secondly, the emerging challenges in Data Management and Security in the Space Industry. Identifying current and potential future space-related disputes: Challenges and the Way Forward. The major concern that arises is the arbitrability of space-related disputes and their collision cases. Owing to space commercialization and its rapid growth, the risk of collisions is drastically increasing, forming an orbital graveyard, especially in low earth orbit. It is predicted that a collision is likely to occur every five to ten years even with no new launches. This raises severe concerns about the dreadful consequences which would occur in the absence of legitimate spatial governance and limitations in space, which could result in Kessler syndrome. Along with this comes the most worrying part, which is “Who shall withhold liability and what would be the extent of such liability?” for such debris collisions, if we look into past cases. In 2007, China intentionally destroyed its weather satellite Fengyun-1C, creating more than two thousand pieces of space debris. This debris has wreaked havoc and poses a serious threat to operational spacecraft in LEO. In 2013, a small Russian spacecraft was severely damaged by one of the pieces of debris from China's Fengyun-1C satellite. In 1977, Cosmos 954 was launched by the Soviet Navy. In 1978, due to malfunctions, the satellite hit the ground over Canada and dropped debris in its soil. The satellite contained a nuclear reactor, which meant the crash scattered nuclear waste over thousands of square miles, rendering the area hostile for settlement. In February 2009, two satellites collided, making it the first-ever collision of two orbital satellites in their orbit. The satellites involved in the collision were US-based Iridium 33 and Russia’s Cosmos 2251, which produced around 2000 pieces of debris and thousands of other small chunks, posing a threat to other space objects operating around the vicinity of LEO. The collision of these two satellites alone released 70% of the space debris population in low earth orbit, creating the world's largest dump yard. International Law does not provide any specific guidance or statutory framework for collisions of satellites or leaving space debris in LEO. In all these cases, one thing was common, that is “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege", which says there is no punishment if there is no law. The data provided to UNCOPUOS (United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space) further bolsters this perspective. According to registration data from the United States, numerous debris fragments resulting from launched objects are categorized as space objects for registration purposes. This suggests that a state significantly impacted by the legal intricacies surrounding space debris defines space objects broadly enough to encompass debris, particularly within the framework of the Liability Convention. Consequently, for the context of this article, space debris is recognized as a subset of space objects, subjecting it to the principles and regulations outlined in space law. This perspective is reinforced by the precedent set by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of Nicaragua v United States of America as well as in the North Sea Continental Shelf case, affirming the broad application of space law principles to encompass space debris within the definition of space objects. Furthermore, after the Russia-Ukraine war, the world is approaching an anarchy in the space arena, making it more congested and contested, whence the risks and threats of militarization are being fostered under the masquerade of securitization. To counter and domesticate the evolving anarchy, the traditional space law, namely the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, fails to address regulations pertaining to behavioral conduct, such as space traffic management and coordination. While the treaty governs the status of space and its actors, this neglect hampers the progress of the global space economy by compromising transparency and confidence-building measures. Emerging Challenges in Data Management and Security in the Space Industry: Implications for National Security and International Cooperation With the phenomenal rise in the number of satellites and sensors being deployed into space, the prominent matter of concern is the safe and secure ways of storage of large quantities of data which are being transmitted by these machines. The pressing concern over the storage and management of space-industry data is not only from the orbiting satellites and sensors but also from the Earth, as an enormous amount of data is insisted on for the development of APS advanced propulsion systems. Traditional chemical propulsion systems are demarcated in their ability to achieve high velocities, which is vital for deep space exploration. Subsequently, the usage of advanced simulation tools and computational fluid dynamics CFD for the development of APS will mandate a large amount of secure data storage. The ensuing issue will be the privacy and security concern of this data, as this data entails various crucial aspects of one’s planning and programs. This leads us to another issue of national security and International Cooperation: The space industry closely coalesces with National security with many countries using satellites and space-based surveillance for intelligence-gathering, communication, border security and tracking. There is also a likelihood of violation of some communities and regions by keeping an unwarranted eye on them without their consent, thereby violating their right to privacy and to live life in integrity, which gets answers when sought contrary to the present scenario where they don't get transparency and accountability for this unjustified surveillance. Moreover, when tension rises among nations, the dispute over access to space and space-based technologies for military and surveillance purposes becomes a matter of opinion in the absence of a black and white Framework which further exacerbates the need for a regulatory framework. Up until now, it would not be an exaggeration to say that data exerts great power. Conclusion The exploration and commercialization of space have yielded unprecedented economic growth, with the global space economy surging to a value of 424 billion US dollars in 2020, marking a remarkable 70% expansion within a decade. Projections indicate that the space industry has the potential to achieve a staggering economic boost of 1 trillion US dollars in the coming years. However, as progress and development pave the way, they also bring forth complex challenges and conundrums, particularly in the resolution of novel space-related disputes. The writer has meticulously delved into these challenges, focusing on two major areas: existing space-related disputes and the emerging challenges in data management and security within the space industry. In conclusion, the convergence of space disputes and the complexities of the arbitration process presents a formidable legal landscape. Given the magnitude of economic growth and technological advancements within the space industry, proactive measures are essential to address existing and future disputes, safeguard data management and security, preserve national security interests, and foster international cooperation. The immense power inherent in controlling space-related data necessitates the establishment of a sound legal framework that strikes a delicate balance between commercial interests, legal accountability, and the peaceful exploration and exploitation of outer space.

Quantum Meruit – Right to Restitution under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Quantum Meruit is Latin for “as much as he has deserved”, as per the Black’s Law Dictionary. It has developed as legal principle to ensure that a non-gratuitous act of delivery of goods or execution of work when voluntarily accepted or utilized by the recipient thereof a beneficiary of the non-gratuitous act is legally liable to restitute the value of such goods or works executed. Herein, it would be useful to list some of the modes of entering into a binding contract by large entities like Governments or Corporations etc. In the case of the Union or State Government, the mode for entering into a contract is prescribed under the authority of Article 299 of the Constitution. Similarly, a Statutory body is required to act in compliance with the mandate of the Statute for entering into binding contracts as provided therefor. In the case of a Corporate body, it may expressly authorize an individual either by a Board resolution, or a Power of Attorney to enter into a contract on its behalf to bind the said Corporate entity. The issue of applicability of Section 70 arises in a situation when there is no binding contract between the parties. The said section reads as follows: S. 70 Obligation of person enjoying the benefit of non-gratuitous act Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.” In order to invoke the principle of restitution under Section 70, the foremost pre-requisite is that the subject should be outside the realm of a contract between the parties. In other words, the provision is only available when the subject of the claim is not covered by the contractual scope of work where the parties have a subsisting contract. However, if some work is executed or goods or services are supplied non-gratuitously and accepted but payment is denied on account of the absence of a binding contract in respect thereof, section 70 is available qua such claims. The test for the same is that no suit for specific performance is maintainable nor any claim for damages can be made by the person who has done the non-gratuitous act against the person who has benefited from such an act. The key ingredients that have to be established by a claimant for invoking Section 70 before the Arbitral Tribunal or Court of Law can be summarized as follows: i. firstly, the claimant shall have done something lawfully for the respondent or delivered something; ii. secondly, the claimant shall not have done it gratuitously; and iii. thirdly, the respondent should have voluntarily enjoyed the same. A 5 Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.K. Mondal’s case authoritatively clarified the legal nuances in this regard by reference to a contention of breach of the mandate of Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which is akin to Article 299 of Constitution of India in the following words, “… even if the respondent built the warehouse he could not have forced the appellant to accept and the appellant may well have asked it to demolish the warehouse and take away the materials. Therefore, the mere act of constructing the warehouse on the part of the respondent cannot be said to contravene the provisions of Section 175 (3). In this connection, it may be relevant to consider illustration (a) to Section 70. The said illustration shows that if a tradesman leaves goods at B’s house by mistake, and B treats the goods as his own he is bound to pay A for them. Now, if we assume that B stands for the State Government, can it be said that A was contravening the provisions of Section 175(3) when by mistake he left the goods at the house of B? The answer to this question is obviously in the negative. Therefore, if goods are delivered by A to the State Government by mistake and the State Government accepts the goods and enjoys them a claim for compensation can be made by A against the State Government, and in entertaining the said claim the Court could not be upholding the contravention of Section 175(3) at all either directly or indirectly. Once it is realized that the cause of action for a claim for compensation under section 70 is based not upon the delivery of the goods or the doing any work as such but upon the acceptance and enjoyment of the sad goods or the said work it would not be difficult to hold that Section 70 does not treat as valid the Contravention of Section 175(3) of the Act.” Lawfully in the context of Section 70 has been interpreted in the said judgment as follows “….in our opinion, all that the word “lawfully” in the context indicates is that after something is delivered or something is done by one person for another and that thing is accepted and enjoyed by the latter, a lawful relationship is born between the two which under the provisions of Section 70 gives rise to a claim for compensation.” The Supreme Court has further held that the thing delivered or done must not be delivered or done fraudulently or dishonestly nor must it be delivered or done gratuitously. Section 70 was held to be not available for persons who impose on others services not desired by them. Once it is delivered the recipient ought to have the freedom to reject it including directing to demolish and remove any construction built without any binding contract. But if the goods delivered are consumed or appropriated or the construction is utilized then section 70 is attracted and the person making the claim is entitled to be restituted for the same. The Supreme Court as early as 1961 had taken judicial notice of the fact that large organizations have to act in certain situations without adhering to the requisite procedures prescribed for entering into a binding contract, “It is well-known that in the functioning of the vast organization represented by a modern State government officers have invariably to enter into a variety of contracts which are often of a petty nature. Sometimes they may have to act in emergency, and on many occasions, in the pursuit of the welfare policy of the State government officers may have to enter into contract orally or through correspondence without strictly complying with the provisions of Section 175(3) of the Act.” The above-mentioned judgment in B. K. Mondal’s case has stood the test of time and has laid a very strong jurisprudential basis on which the Governments, Public Sector Enterprises, or Large Corporations can be made to pay on a principle of law based on equity even in the absence of a binding contract. Modern day commercial contracts provide for scope of work and also contemplate work orders to be issued in writing by the Engineer in Charge at site. However, it is common knowledge that many a times oral instructions are given to the contractor to undertake certain works or supply certain goods which is neither part of the original scope of work nor any work order is placed as contemplated under the General Conditions of Contract. In such a scenario, the remedy lies under Section 70 of the Contract Act which can be enforced even before a Arbitral Tribunal. In fact in a recent judgment the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigal Ltd. Vs. Vihaan Networks Ltd. has upheld an Arbitral Award which granted compensation under section 70 for certain works done in anticipation of a Purchase order pursuant to a Advance Purchase Order issued by the employer, who later withdrew the Advance Purchase Order. Section 70 falls in Chapter V of the Contract Act deals with ’Certain Relations Resembling those created by Contract’. Absence of a Contract is when Section 70 provides a equitable remedy for the goods supplied or works done bonafide non gratuitously and the same are voluntarily accpeted by the other party. Sridhar Potaraju is a Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

When Law Meets Literature-A Meaningful dialogue

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The legal profession is often seen as an expansive realm where exploration knows no bounds. It intertwines with various disciplines such as History, Philosophy, Psychology, Economics, Sociology, and Literature. Among these, the connection between Law and Literature stands out as particularly profound, akin to the symbiotic relationship between pen and paper. The convergence of Law and Literature traces back to 1930 when former United States Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo penned his seminal essay "Law and Literature," emphasizing the clarity with which novelists and playwrights convey ideas. Cardozo advocated for judges to adopt a similar clarity in their prose. This article marks the inception of the Law and Literature movement, which has flourished since. American Law Professor James Boyd White is credited as a key figure in this movement, highlighting the interconnectedness of Law, Literature, and other disciplines. In his work "Law as Language: Reading Law and Reading Literature," White drew parallels between lawyers and literary critics as interpreters of texts. Over time, this movement has evolved, giving rise to two distinct branches: "Law as Literature" and "Law in Literature." These subdivisions explore how law is depicted in literary works and how literature can be analyzed through legal frameworks, respectively. In essence, the Law and Literature movement continues to thrive, enriching both fields with its interdisciplinary approach. Law as a Literature The intersection of Law and Literature is a captivating subject that prompts us to redefine our understanding of both disciplines. Literature, as per the Oxford Dictionary, encompasses written works of enduring artistic merit or publications on specific subjects. This begs the question: can legal texts like Bare Acts, Court Judgements, and even the Constitution of India be classified as Literature? In my view, legal texts unequivocally qualify as Literature. Bare Acts, Court Judgements, and constitutional documents represent profound expressions of societal norms and governance, embodying enduring significance. For instance, the Constitution of India stands as a monumental piece of Literature, persisting as the country's supreme law since its inception in 1949. Renowned poet and legal scholar Jerry Pinto aptly remarked at the Mountain Echoes Literary Festival that law is fundamentally an interpretation of literature. Indeed, legal practitioners and judges engage in an interpretative act akin to literary analysis when delving into legal texts. Each legal case unfolds as a narrative, with characters, conflicts, and resolutions mirroring the structure of literary works. Moreover, both Law and Literature share a common purpose of addressing societal issues. Legal precedents, akin to literary morals, provide guidance and establish norms for future conduct. Just as literary texts convey moral lessons, legal judgments impart societal values and principles. The significance of writing further underscores the connection between Law and Literature. Lawyers, akin to writers, meticulously craft legal documents and arguments, employing a formal yet precise language. The philosophy of "Deconstruction" introduced by Jacques Derrida finds resonance in legal practice, as lawyers dissect facts and legal principles to discern their underlying meanings. In essence, the convergence of Law and Literature enriches our understanding of both disciplines. Legal texts embody the enduring artistic merit and societal significance characteristic of Literature, while legal practice mirrors the interpretative nature and moral exploration inherent in literary analysis. Legal Interpretation and Literature Literature and law share a profound interconnection, each influencing the other in a dynamic symbiosis that shapes societal norms and perceptions. Notably, literature frequently serves as a platform for authors to critique and dissect the legal frameworks of their times. Renowned literary figures such as Shakespeare, Dickens, Kafka, and Dostoevsky employed their works to scrutinize and challenge prevailing notions of law and order. Even Shakespeare, rumored to possess legal training himself, famously quipped, "the first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers" in Henry VI, underscoring a satirical commentary on the legal establishment. The impact of literature on law is manifold. As literature permeates society, it wields considerable influence over societal norms and values. When authors incorporate themes of law into their works, it resonates deeply with readers, fostering a critical examination of existing legal paradigms. Literary movements like Realism and Transcendentalism have also left indelible imprints on legal doctrines, shaping the evolution of laws over time. Conversely, law finds its way into literature as a subject matter, enriching narratives with legal complexities and moral dilemmas. Through lifelike storytelling, literature sensitizes legal practitioners to the human condition, fostering a deeper understanding of societal needs and aspirations. Moreover, the relationship between law and literature extends to the courtroom itself. Judges often draw upon literary references to elucidate legal principles and render judgments more relatable and comprehensible. In landmark cases like Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India & Ors (2011) 10 SCC 354, Justice M. Katju opened the judgment with a poignant couplet from Mirza Ghalib, while in N. Ranga Rao and Sons vs Anil Garg and Ors 2006 (32) PTC 15 Del, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul borrowed lines from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet to underscore the essence of intellectual property rights. In another order in the same case, the judges quoted Ghalib’s verse ‘Pinha tha daam-e-sakht qareeb aashiyan ke, udhne na paaye the ki giraftaar hum hue’ to describe the plight of young girls caught in the sex trade due to abject poverty. These instances underscore the profound synergy between law and literature, where literary expressions not only critique legal frameworks but also inspire judicial discourse, enriching both disciplines and contributing to a deeper understanding of the human experience within the realm of law. Rearguing the relationship of the law and literature: The Constitution as a Literature A country's Constitution serves as a living document, embodying strength and continuity by bridging the past, present, and future. At its core, it is a written text, its language both defining its limitations and broadening its horizons. Disagreements arise when interpretations of constitutional language diverge, reflecting differing understandings of its intent, scope, and construction. Aristotle's concept of "ethos" underscores how a text shapes the relationship between its readers and various actors within society. Examining law, particularly constitutional law, in reverse, reveals a shift from viewing legal provisions as rigid commands to understanding them as dynamic constructs requiring reader engagement and interpretation. This perspective, as elucidated by legal theorist Hart, distinguishes between internal and external points of view, emphasizing the role of culture, history, and language in shaping legal discourse. A Constitution thus becomes a framework of activities that bind individuals together, establishing relationships and assigning roles within society. The Constitution's literary nature lies in its ability to give meaning to human experience through language, akin to the function of literature. While acknowledging their differences, both legal and literary texts share common concerns and engage readers in various activities. This challenges the misconception that law is solely about power and practicality, while literature is purely aesthetic. Instead, the Constitution is constitutive, creating new spaces for dialogue and instituting conditions for discourse. Both law and literature thrive in ambiguity and complexity, recognizing the role of individual perspective in shaping interpretation. This acknowledgment of the indeterminate nature of meaning allows for the exploration of relationships between texts and readers. In this ongoing quest to ascertain meaning and establish connections, both law and literature find vitality and relevance. Future of Law and Literature The relationship between literature and modern law is multifaceted, particularly evident in the regulation of literary works through copyright laws. Dating back to the Statute of Anne in 1710, which recognized authors' rights, copyright laws have continually evolved to protect literary creations from plagiarism. The convergence of law and literature is increasingly prominent in academia, with the emergence of interdisciplinary courses like "Law in Literature" and "Law as Literature" offered by universities worldwide. Legal English professors argue that studying law through literature enhances students' ability to interpret legal principles effectively. Literature's universality makes it a relatable tool for teaching law, as aspiring lawyers often find authors like Shakespeare and Dickens more familiar than legal theorists like Bentham and Locke. By integrating literature into legal education, a hybrid understanding of both disciplines is cultivated, fostering a more engaging and efficient learning process. It's crucial to recognize that while literature complements law, it doesn't override it; instead, it offers supplementary insights and perspectives. Lord Denning's assertion underscores the significance of literary proficiency in legal practice, emphasizing the importance of mastering language and communication skills. Ultimately, the interdependence between law and literature is undeniable. Both subjects stand independently yet mutually enrich each other. As legal landscapes evolve, the integration of literature into legal education and practice offers novel approaches to teaching, interpreting, and arguing legal concepts, reinforcing the enduring bond between law and literature. The author is a Law Undergraduate form Bharati Vidyapeeth-New law College He is Currently Serving as Research Associate at StartUp Advisors

India’s Changed Image Regarding Retrospective Taxation Laws

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

In recent times the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 brought about required changes regarding the country’s perception vis-a-vis taxation jurisprudence and especially retrospective taxation jurisprudence. This specific amendment was brought after the earlier taxation provisions which were brought around the year 2012 qua retrospectively taxing indirect capital transfers. That it is important to note that vide earlier ruling the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings casei held that indirect transfer of shares of an Indian company vide an international transaction, cannot be taxed as capital gain and would not fall under the purview of section 9(1)(i) of the Act (ii). However the legislature in 2012 brought amendments in the Finance Act, 2012 which allowed the government to retrospectively tax indirect capital transfer of shares situated even outside the country when a substantial interest is derived from assets in India. Capital gain by way of indirect transfer of capital asset also came in the ambit of such retrospective taxation back then. Henceforth assessment notices from tax authorities were retrospectively applicable back then. However the new Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 is bringing tax certainty and will ensure that once certain conditions of the Act are fulfilled, the pending Income-tax proceedings shall be withdrawn against the Assessee and/or demand, if any will be nullified while the amount collected will be refunded to the Assessee without any interest. The new amendment ensured that no tax demand shall be raised in future on the basis of the amendment to section 9 of the Actiii made in the Finance Act, 2012 for any offshore indirect transfer of Indian assets if the transaction was undertaken before May 28, 2012. It also ensured that the demand raised for offshore indirect transfer of Indian assets would be “nullified on fulfillment of specified conditions” such as the withdrawal of pending litigation and an undertaking that no damage claims would be filed, this being an important aspect as various international arbitration claims were being made against Indian assets outside of India. India has been part of several treaties and the earlier retrospective taxation laws of 2012 were in violation of these treaties. Hence later on these treaties were invoked by private companies thus resulting in decline in India’s ease of doing business ability. Therefore the introduction of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 by the legislature should augment India’s image as an investment destination for foreign business. The new amendment law is providing clarity to international investors about the business environment in the country. The same will also create a sense of credibility for the country in the international arena. India can also be seen more committed towards the investment environment and against tax terrorism, which still haunts the investor community. Upcoming sectors such as telecom and oil exploration will get boost due to this aforesaid amendment act as major companies looking for investment will mostly be from these sectors. The refund initiative through the amendment act will also be of keen interest for companies which were at the wrong end of the retrospective taxation laws. The taxation laws are often seen as severe as criminal laws especially when retrospective amendments are brought in. There have been instances when retrospective taxation laws have been upheld, but the wider ramification effect on the investment climate on the country should also be taken care of by the Government. Retrospective taxation laws do not help in creating business friendly environment, in fact it deters investment opportunities. The new initiative of 2021 aims to establish an investment-friendly business environment in the country with lucrative opportunities for foreign investments in India. Thus India retains its reputation thereafter in the business circles. It is with this thought process that the business circle can be asked to invest in India rather than an environment of uncertainty where tax authorities can make demands vis-a-vis any date from the past. Apart from the above to have a clear stance for a clean welcoming business environment regarding retrospective laws, India also needs to have fluctuating trade tariffs or shifting Goods And Service Tax (GST) rates to show greater clarity and consistency in policy for future investment proposals. There should ideally also be greater sense of assurance towards the business community that retrospective taxation laws which can harm the business community will ideally not be brought again by the Government. Apart from this it will also help India to create a clear dispute resolution mechanism in cross-border transactions so that international jurisdictional problems can be avoided and effective dispute adjudication can take place for both parties which will save time & cost. Taxation laws are the pathways which will help India in creating an economy which will help its growth in the coming decades and will ensure that the growth continues. It is also mostly via taxation laws only that any foreign investor decides the investment capacity in India and the investment opportunities that can be utilized here in India. It is therefore very prudent to have such tax laws in place which not only support the existing investment cycle in India and the business circle but also provides incentive to other international business leaders who are looking for investment proposals in India but are not sure on whether to enter India or not. An easy taxation process which the current system is relatively offering can help in great length to that effect.

Arbitration Clause and Consumer Complaints: A Mare’s Nest?

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

An interesting question which has emanated from some recent judgments, is the quandary of the arbitration clause in an arbitration agreement and the remedy of consumer complaints under the Consumer Protection Act. Numerous judgments have vehemently held that consumer disputes are non-arbitrable in nature and consumers cannot be compelled into arbitration. Per contra, the courts have also held that the presence of an Arbitration Clause does not bar the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. Now, the question that emerges from the various judgments is when should an arbitration clause be invoked by the parties, should it be invoked before approaching the consumer fora, or will the presence of the arbitration clause not restrain the parties from knocking the door of the consumer fora? This article will try to discuss this interesting proposition of law as to whether the arbitration clause bars the jurisdiction of the consumer fora or, whether the consumer fora retains the power to handle consumer complaints, notwithstanding the arbitration clause. In the case of Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018, the Supreme Court of India issued a ruling that clarified the relationship between arbitration clauses in contracts and the authority of the consumer forum. It was held that the arbitration clause in an agreement does not prevent the consumer forum from using its authority to hear consumer complaints. The court upheld the consumer's ability to seek remedies from the consumer forum, even in cases where a contract contained an arbitration clause. The purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to spare customers from onerous arbitration procedures or civil suits. Consumer forums are empowered to decide cases under the Consumer Protection Act unless they determine that another forum would be more appropriate in a given situation. Arbitration may proceed without obstruction, if a party to an arbitration agreement who is eligible to file a consumer complaint chooses not to do so. The judgment in Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (supra) has also been relied upon by the Hon’ble NCDRC in a catena of judgments such as Dr. Satpal Kaur Nalwa & Anr. v. M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 854 of 2016 as well as in Dharamvir Singh & Anr. v. Jai Prakash Associates Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 675 of 2016, wherein it was held that an arbitration clause in an agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the consumer fora to entertain the complaint. These judgments are categorical in their findings that an arbitration clause will not drive out the authority of the consumer fora in entertaining consumer disputes. The remedies under the Consumer Protection Act and the arbitration act are different and the proceedings can continue simultaneously. In another case of Smt. M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors. v. B. Udayasri, Civil Appeal Nos. 6500 6501 of 2023, the Supreme Court held that the Consumer Protection Act offers specific remedies to consumers that are not negated by an arbitration agreement between the parties because it is a specialized and beneficial piece of legislation. It was observed that it was not possible to waive the consumer's inalienable right to seek redress through the Consumer Forum, particularly in cases of defective goods or services, by consenting to arbitration. It was stressed that even in cases containing an arbitration agreement, the Consumer Protection Act proceedings are distinct and have no bearing on the presence of an arbitration clause. Moreover, the 1996 amendment to Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act were primarily intended by the legislature to limit the amount of judicial intervention. This does not, however, imply that non-arbitrable matters such as those covered by special laws like the Consumer Protection Act must be referred to arbitration. Essentially, the courts have emphasized that, even though legitimate arbitration agreements are valid, the general rule still stands that disputes that are not amenable to arbitration, particularly those which are governed by specialized laws, should not be compelled for redressal through arbitration. The Supreme Court, however, in the case of Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni, Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020, held that the nature of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to those offered by special statutes. The court emphasized that the remedies provided by any special legislation pertaining to the matter are not exclusive and are instead supplemented by those available through the Consumer Protection Act. Again, in National Seeds Corporation Limited v M Madhusudhan Reddy, Civil Appeal No. 7543 of 2004, the Supreme Court held that despite the arbitration clause in the contract, the consumer is not required to seek a remedy solely under the Arbitration Act, 1996, instead, they may file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act or request a reference to arbitration. The Judgments in Imperia Structures (supra) as well as in Smt. M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors (supra) have taken the view that arbitration in consumer disputes are non-arbitrable in nature and parties cannot be compelled into arbitration just because they are a signatory to an arbitration agreement. From a recapitulation of the aforementioned judgments, it can be concluded that there is no conflict between the Consumer Protection Act and the Arbitration Act. An arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer fora and the consumers can approach the consumer fora even without invoking the arbitration clause in their agreement. If a consumer dispute is non-arbitrable, then the parties must approach the consumer fora instead of seeking remedies under the arbitration act. It has to be borne in mind that the Consumer Protection Act is an enactment, enacted for the general welfare of the public and to protect consumer rights. Therefore, it is sine qua non that the parties to a dispute choose arbitration of their own free will instead of taking recourse to the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act otherwise the consumer disputes will fall into the category of disputes which are non-arbitrable and cannot be adjudicated by an arbitrator. It needs to be seen whether the parties who are signatories to an arbitration agreement can be forced into an arbitration when the disputes can be redressed through the Consumer Protection Act or whether such disputes are non-arbitrable? The apex court needs to throw some light on the aspect of arbitration clauses that are mutually consented to by the parties and their fate especially when there are consumer disputes between the parties as the presence of an arbitration clause cannot be done away with, just because the parties have entered the arena of consumer law. The above discussion also throws another very important question open and that is with regard to international disputes involving buyers and sellers across borders wherein their agreements have the presence of an arbitration clause and the nature of their redressal. In such a scenario, the writer poses a question to herself and that is what will be the destiny of such an international dispute which cannot be taken to a consumer forum governed by the Consumer Protection Act and whether the Supreme Court’s reasoning that the consumer disputes are non-arbitrable, will apply in such a situation, where there is absolutely no role of the act and all that the parties have at their disposal, is the invocation of the arbitrable clause, though it is a consumer dispute. Will the arbitration clause become redundant or will it beat the ambit and sweep of the Arbitration Act i.e. amicable settlement of disputes without court intervention?

SC pulls up Uttarakhand Govt, rejects Patanjali Ayurved’s apology

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court strongly rebuked the Uttarakhand government for its failure to address the legal transgressions of Patanjali Ayurved and rebuffed apologies from Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna regarding misleading advertisements. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanudding Amanullah expressed deep concerns about the countless innocent individuals who had been misled by the medicines, emphasizing the court's steadfast commitment to holding FMCG companies accountable for their deceptive advertising practices. They demanded swift action against officials who had neglected their duties, and they mandated responses from district Ayurvedic and Unani officers dating back to 2018. The court underscored the paramount importance of upholding its orders and dismissed the apologies, deeming them as deliberate acts of disobedience. The affidavit submitted by the State Licensing Authority, attempting to explain its actions regarding objectionable ads, was sharply criticized for its lack of meaningful action. Despite previous apologies, new ones were tendered promising compliance with the law, yet the court remained skeptical, underscoring the gravity of the violations and their impact on its directives.

Third-Party Funding and Arbitration Centres: Reimagining the arbitration space in India

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Abstract The blog critically analyzes the nuances of third-party funding in arbitration and seeks to address how it can be regulated and implemented in India. The major issue of pendency of litigation in India has been highlighted, and how Alternate Dispute Resolution was intended to reduce the burden on courts. Furthermore, it has been discussed how arbitration in India remains in the hands of a certain section of society, with TPF becoming almost necessary to make it accessible to all. The blog also mentions foreign models of TPF and suggests that in India how a Welfare Model deployment can be a boon. Moreover, this can be done by bringing in DLSA and establishing court-annexed arbitration centers which will reimagine how we perceive the arbitration space in India. The blog concludes with the proposition that “Arbitration For All” remains an unexplored proposition area of discussion, which is required in order to truly reap the fruits of arbitration. Introduction The terminology “Arbitration” might be a novice but the concept behind this word is in existence in the Indian setup since the inception of the society. Initially, courts were not there to hammer out the solutions to the problems between parties, at that time the notion of settlement was there. Nowadays the concept of settlement between the parties is termed as “Arbitration” derived from the Latin term ‘arbitrari’ which means “to judge”. In English, this word includes the process of settlement and adjudication too. With the evolution of new terminology, the system which used to exist in the conventional setup has become the luxury of the rich. The objective behind bringing arbitration into the legal domain was to reduce the burden of courts, unfortunately, the same seems to be frustrating. Presently the pendency of the court ranges from 4.7 to 5 crores, which is prodigious in a country having supremacy of law. With this, it is very well understood that the objective of arbitration is being forgotten. There are a lot of discussions and deliberations happening in order to reverse the damage done and to accord a solution to the same. One such proposed solution is the concept of Third Party Funding. If we understand this notion from the layman’s perspective it is very clear that it ought to bring Arbitration accessible to all via funding from this party. Though innumerable discussion on this topic revolves around and various proposed methodologies exist. But as we know law is like wax it would take the shape in which it moulded, so the concept of third-party funding if thought considering India’s scenario (problems such as poverty, illiteracy, overburdened judiciary etc.) would be the most fruitful solution to make arbitration accessible for all. The Concept of Third-Party Funding Third-Party Funding as a concept has a foreign ring around it, as it is not of Indian origin. As the name suggests, when any arbitration is being funded by a third party who is not related to the dispute, on some agreed return, it is known as ‘Third Party Funding.’ There has been controversy going on about whether third-party funding should be brought into India. As of now, the concept is applicable only in the Advance Arbitration countries, and India is at a nascent stage of arbitration where half of the population is not aware of ‘arbitration’ as a mechanism. Moreover, this is one unexplored domain which, if it comes into existence, can be a successful model in the Indian setup. Arbitration in India: A Privilege of the Rich Alternate Dispute Resolution was envisaged as a means of reducing the burden on conventional methods of dispute resolution, and most importantly, litigation in courts. Arbitration in India is generally seen as a means of resolving disputes for “high-profile” or “high-transaction” matters, involving big corporate houses and wealthy individuals, among others, with the claim amount running into multiple figures. Arbitration proceedings in India are expensive, and institutional arbitration remains accessible to a select few. India being a developing nation still has a population that is below the poverty line, and affording arbitration services is a farfetched idea for them. It is in this context that third-party funding in India has to be introduced in a manner to make arbitration accessible to a large section of society. Arbitration and Third-Party Funding in other Jurisdictions: Comparative Analysis There are many countries where Arbitration is utilized at an advanced level with a full-fledged model of third-party funding. An analysis is made to understand the model of third-party funding in arbitration in foreign jurisdictions, which are as follows:

Singapore

Being an arbitration hub, Singapore is progressive in its laws as well. The legal development of the country has gone to an extent that they now have fully developed laws on Third Party funding since 2017 titled Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2017. Furthermore, the law is according to their developed citizenry and status as initially third-party funding was open only for international arbitration and litigation. However, considering the demands at the domestic level, Singapore came up with an amendment in 2021 to extend the scope of third-party funding not only to domestic arbitration but also to litigation.

England

England is considered the second-largest market for third-party funding. In England, prominence has been given to funding litigation via third parties. The market is being encapsulated by private players, and presently the third-party funding is majorly governed by the Associate Litigation Funding (ALF) body. Apart from this, other well-recognized names are involved in the field. In short, it can be asserted that England has more of a commercialized model which regulated third-party funding.

Hong Kong

After London and Singapore, Hong Kong is considered the preferred seat for Arbitration. But until 2017, it followed the doctrines of common law i.e., maintenance and champerty which prohibited third-party funding. In 2017 the legislative body came up with a law bypassing these doctrines. The newly enacted law governs third-party funding in Hong Kong, but still in the developing phase as it has not been extended to the litigation domain, unlike other countries. Third-Party Funding: Through the lens of Welfarism in India Considering the development of third-party funding in foreign jurisdictions and the absence of such a mechanism in India, it is now incumbent that third-party funding in India has to be reimagined in a way that is peculiar to the Indian legal system. There is a need to introduce arbitration for resolving a major chunk of disputes pending before courts in India. The conventional method of litigation has been proven to be time-consuming, and expensive and often results in various levels of appeals. The essence of a dispute is time and easy access to a resolution, and arbitration in that sense offers a novel mechanism for the same. Given the scope of arbitration and the pendency of cases, what may prevent the arbitration space in India from blossoming is the access and costs associated with it. This is where Third Party Funding would come in, and more importantly, an endeavor has to be made to alter the “Return on Investment” proposition associated with it. It has to be reimagined in terms of a ‘welfare model’, wherein those who fund the arbitration proceedings would do so “pro bono publico” and “in the interests of justice”. Normally, no third party would fund the arbitration without getting a profitable share of the award, however, this can be made possible via 2 already existing mechanisms viz. District Legal Services Authority (hereinafter referred to as DLSA) and funding under the model of ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (hereinafter referred to as CSR). Suggestive Indian Model for Third-Party Funding: A Way Forward Considering the problems associated with arbitration and the recent developments in India, it is important to implement a model of third-party funding which is suitable to the Indian perspective. India, being a developing nation, is at a nascent stage of Arbitration and lacks a comprehensive legal framework like other countries as discussed above. The suggestive model that can be implemented in an Indian setup is as follows:

Legislation to regulate Third-Party Funding

There is a need to bring in comprehensive legislation with respect to arbitration in India, on the lines of the proposed Mediation Bill, 2021. Such a law will ensure that various facets of arbitration, including third-party funding of arbitration, can be regulated via a single law. A welfare model of third-party funding is required which is based on the principle of good faith and not as a commercial setup. Presently, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has some aspects of arbitration which are absent and which, with the passage of time, have become relevant to be incorporated into the law.

DLSA as a nodal agency

The scope of DLSA’s work has to be increased to ensure that it can be a nodal body to maintain records of potential third parties who are interested in funding the parties in dispute “pro bono” such as corporates via CSR funds, NGOs, Social Activists, think tanks, businessmen, and other welfare organizations. This can be made possible since DLSA is present in every district and under its free legal aid programme, eligible parties can be provided with third-party funding in arbitration proceedings. DLSA can be made as a nodal body for regulating the same, and it can be ensured that third-party funding is not being commercialized and secondly, that disputes which are trivial matters which can be resolved quickly can be referred to arbitration.

Establishing Arbitration Centres in District Courts

The model of mediation centers in district courts can be replicated for arbitration as well, and court-annexed arbitration centers can be set up in district courts. The court may make a reference to such arbitration centers as per Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This will not only ensure that arbitration is accessible but would also encourage poor litigants who cannot afford the long vicious cycle of court proceedings can opt for it with the help of DLSA. Conclusion With the above analysis, it can be concluded that third-party funding if made applicable according to the Indian setup can prove to be a boon. Moreover, it is high time that India should come up with its own model which is feasible considering the status of the citizens. The objective and jurisprudence behind bringing arbitration was to avoid the hectic vicious cycle of proceedings and to make justice available to all. Hence, “Arbitration for all, rather than the ones who have big pockets” is what India should follow, especially when reeling under the pressure of huge pendency and judicial backlog, hindering the resolution of disputes.

Navigating Cartel Disclosures: Understanding CCI’s Lesser Penalty Plus Concept

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

In the complex realm of competition law and antitrust regulations, cartels remain a significant concern due to their nature of distorting markets, inflating prices, and harming consumers. Cartel members often engage in anti-competitive behavior through price-fixing, bid-rigging, market allocation, and other collusive practices that undermine fair competition. To combat these activities, competition authorities worldwide impose penalties and fines on cartel participants. In India, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) plays a crucial role in enforcing competition law and penalizing anti-competitive conduct, including cartel behavior. Understanding the Lesser Penalty Plus Concept: The Lesser Penalty Plus concept introduced by the CCI aims to encourage and reward cartel participants who proactively disclose their involvement in anti-competitive conduct. The framework offers reduced penalties to cartel whistleblowers who cooperate with the competition authority throughout the investigation process. By incentivizing self-reporting and cooperation, the LPP mechanism serves as a crucial tool in detecting and dismantling cartels that operate in secrecy and collusion. Under the LPP framework, a cartel member seeking leniency must meet certain conditions and fulfill specific requirements to qualify for reduced penalties. These conditions typically include: Proactive Disclosure: Cartel members must voluntarily come forward and disclose their participation in the cartel before the CCI initiates an investigation or receives information from another source. Proactive disclosure demonstrates a genuine intent to cooperate with the competition authority and assist in uncovering anti-competitive conduct. Substantial Assistance: To qualify for lesser penalties under the LPP concept, cartel whistleblowers must provide substantial assistance to the CCI in its investigation. This assistance usually involves cooperating fully, sharing relevant information, and providing evidence that aids in establishing the existence of a cartel and determining its impact on competition. No Destruction of Evidence: Cartel participants seeking leniency under the LPP framework must ensure that they do not destroy or conceal any relevant evidence related to the anti-competitive conduct. Maintaining the integrity of evidence and cooperating transparently with the competition authority are essential for availing the benefits of reduced penalties. The Competition Commission of India ("CCI"), vide notification dated 20 February 2024, has introduced the Competition Commission of India (Minor Penalties) Regulations, 2024 (the "Regulations"), replacing the earlier Competition (Lesser Penalties) Regulations, 2009. The Regulations give effect to the concept of "lesser penalty plus" as introduced by the recent amendment to Section 46 of the Competition Act 2002 (the "Act"). What law says: Section 46 of the Act as it read before its amendment by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 empowered the CCI to impose a fine less than that prescribed by law on any manufacturer/seller/distributor/trader/service provider. (the "Person") who is part of a cartel that is alleged to have entered into an anti-competitive agreement, after being satisfied that such person has provided full, true and material information about the cartel in connection with the alleged violations. In April 2023, Section 46 was amended to introduce the term "minor penalty plus". This concept takes into account the situation where, in the course of an ongoing investigation, a person who previously disclosed information about a cartel makes full, true and substantial disclosures about the existence of another cartel that allegedly entered into an anti-competitive agreement(s). Authorizes the CCI to impose on such person a lesser penalty prescribed in the Regulations in respect of a cartel it is already investigating, in addition to such person seeking a lesser penalty in respect of a newly discovered cartel. Amended § 46 did not enter into force until February 20, 2024, see Notice Gazette No. S.O. 740(E) dated 19 February 2024 of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Regulations: Within the meaning of the Regulation, any undertaking which is or has been a member of a cartel (including an individual engaged in a cartel on behalf of the undertaking) and further including an undertaking/association of undertakings/person/association of persons, even if not engaged in identical or similar trade, if it participates in or has in intending to participate in the enforcement of such a cartel, may apply to the CCI for a lesser sanction for full, true and substantial disclosure of the cartel that allegedly violated the provisions of Section 3 (Anti-Competitive Agreements) of the Act. Conditions for a lesser sentence The Order establishes the following conditions for granting a lower fine, as prescribed in § 46 of the Act: (a) the applicant ceased to participate in the cartel from the moment of its publication; (b) the applicant has provided essential information relating to the cartel; (c) The applicant has provided the relevant information, documents and evidence required by the CCI; (d) The applicant has actually, fully, continuously and promptly cooperated e) in the course of investigations and other proceedings before the CCI; (f) the applicant has not concealed, destroyed, manipulated or removed the relevant documents in any way that could contribute to the creation of a cartel; and g) The applicant has not submitted any false evidence or omitted to submit any material information knowing it to be material. According to the regulation, an applicant who provides complete, true and essential information about the cartel in the first place is entitled to a reduction of the fine that may be imposed on him by up to 100%; the second applicant who discloses becomes eligible for a penalty reduction of up to 50%, followed by the third and subsequent applicant(s) to make the disclosure eligible for a penalty reduction of up to 30% payable thereon. The CCI will consider the following while awarding a lesser penalty: (a) The stage at which the applicant publishes; (b) Evidence already in CCI's possession; (c) quality of information provided by the applicant; (d) the facts and circumstances of the case; and (e) meeting the other criteria set out in the previous paragraph; Minor penalty plus Regulation 5 provides that an applicant who has previously provided complete, true and essential information about a cartel (the first cartel) that violates the provisions of § 3 of the Act, and during the investigation against such a first cartel makes a notification about another cartel (the second cartel), is entitled for an additional reduction of the fine imposed on such an applicant for the first cartel by up to 30%. This reduction is in addition to the possible 100% reduction of the penalty that may be imposed on the applicant in the case of the second cartel. However, the disclosure made by the applicant regarding the second cartel must be sufficiently substantial for the CCI to form a prima facie opinion of the existence of the second cartel. Furthermore, such a second cartel must be clearly distinguishable from the first cartel. Regulation 7 sets out the procedure for awarding a lesser penalty plus. Pursuant to Regulation 7, the applicant must submit an application for lesser penalty plus to the designated authority before receiving the investigation report of the Director General in the case of the first cartel by the CCI. It is pertinent to note that the CCI will examine only one applicant's application for lesser penalty plus at a time. In case of multiple applicants, the application of the next applicant will be reviewed by the CCI only if the application of the first applicant is rejected. CCI Discretion and Considerations: The CCI will exercise its discretion in awarding the 'Lesser Penalty Plus' with due regard to: the likelihood that the newly discovered cartel will be detected by the CCI itself or by the Director General without such lesser penalty plus application by the applicant, and Conclusion: In the fight against cartels and anti-competitive practices, the Competition Commission of India's Lesser Penalty Plus concept stands as a vital tool for encouraging cartel disclosures, promoting cooperation, and deterring unlawful conduct in the marketplace. By offering incentives for self-reporting, facilitating investigations, and imposing penalties on violators, the LPP framework plays a crucial role in maintaining fair competition, safeguarding consumer welfare, and upholding the principles of competition law. Navigating cartel disclosures under the CCI's LPP concept requires a nuanced understanding of the leniency requirements, strategic decision-making, and proactive engagement with the competition authority. By embracing the benefits of cooperation, transparency, and compliance, cartel participants can not only mitigate the consequences of engaging in anti-competitive behavior but also contribute to a more competitive and healthy business environment in India.

REPUBLICATION: AS A CONCEPT WITH REFERENCE TO DEFAMATION LAWS

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

From the words of Alexander Pope, “The flying rumors gather'd as they roll'd, Scarce any tale was sooner heard than told; And all who told it added something new, And all who heard it made enlargements too; In ev'ry ear it spread, on ev'ry tongue it grew” (The Temple of Fame). The roots for tort of defamation trace back to an era when harmful speech predominantly found expression in books, magazines, newspapers, and other printed materials.^[1] Core doctrines preceding the establishment of this tort, including concepts like publication, fault, defamation per se, presumed damages, and republication liability, were grounded in the assumption that the primary medium for the dissemination of defamatory content would be through written forms in published works. Similarly, the substantial legal limitations on defamation liability, influenced by a sequence of constitutional precedents from the Supreme Court, which included restrictions on prior restraint, elevated standards for fault, expanded criteria for defining "public" figures, the delineation between "fact" and "opinion," and the burden-shifting principle concerning the establishment of "truth" or "substantial truth," were all developed within a context predominantly dealing with defamatory statements presented in traditional printed formats. While someone intentionally spreading false rumors is clearly liable, what about an individual conveying defamatory information sincerely, believing it to be true and relying on the source's credibility? Additionally, clarity is needed on the impact of republication on the originator's liability and the potential increase in damages. If the statute of limitations has expired for the original defamation, does republication by a third party create a new legal action against the originator? In the age of the internet, the rapid dissemination of content poses challenges to traditional defamation laws, which were originally crafted in a world where the sharing of information was not as instantaneous. Under common law, liability for republication is strict, meaning anyone repeating defamatory content can be held responsible, regardless of their role as the originator or transmitter. This creates a dilemma, especially in cases where the original defamatory words are newsworthy, involving public figures or matters of intense public interest. In the digital era, traditional defamation laws face challenges due to the rapid sharing of content online. Unlike print publications, which carefully avoid defamation, the instant nature of social media and online publishing can lead to the spread of defamatory content. The pressure to generate web traffic often results in hasty publication without thorough verification, even by reputable sources. Today, traditional news outlets extend beyond print to websites, blogs, Twitter feeds, and other social media platforms. This push for rapid publication, driven by the accelerated pace of the internet, sometimes compels even respected publications to bypass thorough fact-checking, raising concerns about the unchecked spread of potentially defamatory information in the digital realm. The “tale bearer” is as liable as the “tale maker.”^[4] The published a report based on Assembly proceedings, including the complainant's involvement, was accurate and based on a government inquiry. If the accused published it in good faith believing it to be true, focusing on the conduct of public servants and public funds, it does not constitute intent to defame the complainant.^[5] According to the sociological school of jurisprudence, laws should prioritize societal benefit. Therefore, republication of factual statements, regardless of their nature, serves to inform the public and should not be considered an offense. This aligns with John Rawls' concept of justice, where actions already accepted by society should not be penalized, as the primary responsibility lies with the initial instigator, “The basic structure is a public system of rules defining a scheme of activities that leads men to act together so as to produce a greater sum of benefits and assign to each certain recognized claim, to a share in the proceeds.” Reprinting or rebroadcasting already accepted information should not be an offense; the initial instigator bears the responsibility, ensuring equality under the law. Defamation laws aim to prevent individuals from unjustly losing public respect due to another's words, which is ethically unjust. If a person is not offended by statements from individual A in public, they shouldn't be offended by the same words from another person, B, whom they don't know. Punishing B should involve holding A accountable first, as B's basis may have been A's statements, ensuring equality under the law. While defamatory statements are punishable, if based on factual information beneficial to society, they shouldn't be deemed defamatory, as justice must be equitable regardless of one's status. The article discusses liability for republishers and originators under United States and international laws, aiming to establish clearer rules. It emphasizes foreseeability as key in determining originator responsibility for third-party republications, regardless of defamation form. It advocates for aligning legal principles with tort liability norms and considering potential damages in jurisdictions allowing only one legal action. The responsibility of the originator for a defamatory remark extends to subsequent republications by them. However, this may not be the case if the republication is done by someone else. Cases in this context vary between two extremes. Liability is established when an agent republishes under the originator's direction or authorization, or when others, not classified as agents but intended by the originator to republish the remarks, engage in republication. The increased likelihood of written defamation being republished underscores the ease with which repetitions are viewed as natural consequences of libel, in contrast to slander. Courts, recognizing this distinction., often exhibit reluctance in imposing liability for potential republication of slander. Nevertheless, the substantial potential damage arising from libel introduces a challenge, prompting a consideration of limitations on recovery amounts or the number of actions for republication. This deliberation gives rise to the concept of a unitary cause of action, commonly referred to as the "single publication" rule. The liability of both the originator and republisher in defamation cases is closely linked. If the republisher is not held accountable, there's more reason to pursue the originator. The development of defamation law, influenced by English nobility, highlights the importance of identifying the source when repeating defamatory statements. This disclosure could impact the credibility of the claims and provide a legal remedy against the originator, rather than solely targeting the republisher. In the development of defamation law influenced by English nobility, the Earl of Northampton's case introduced the doctrine of multiple publication, emphasizing the importance of disclosing the source of defamatory statements.The Earl of Northampton's Case rule, once influential, is now largely historical and discredited in the United States. Presently, republishers are typically held accountable, even if they disclose their sources, with exceptions for privileged republications or lack of awareness. Liability usually mirrors that of the originator, regardless of innocence or belief in the statement's truth. In India, republication of libel remains actionable, even if attributed to a specific source. Similarly, repetition of slander is also actionable, as each instance is considered a willful publication, unless privileged. If an individual is guilty of slander, someone else repeating it cannot evade responsibility by claiming they merely repeated a slanderous statement made by another. Those making slanderous statements may face punishment when discovered and tried, but another person has no right to repeat an unjustified slanderous statement. The republisher remains liable, even if they present the defamation as a mere rumor. In the case of Watkin v. Hall, the statement "Have you heard the rumor that the plaintiff is insolvent" was deemed actionable. Justification for a defamatory statement by referring to its presence elsewhere or circulating rumors is not valid. Every repetition of a libel is treated as a distinct libel, and each publisher bears responsibility for their actions as if the false statement originated from them, regardless of whether they initiated it or merely echoed it. The Court held that offense of defamation comprises three key elements: (1) making or publishing an imputation about a person, (2) such imputation being conveyed through spoken or written words, signs, or visible representations, and (3) the imputation being made with the intention to harm the person's reputation or with knowledge that it will cause harm. Thus, the intent to cause harm is crucial for an offense under Section 499 IPC. Additionally, in this instance, the press was owned by a company in Calcutta and merely engaged in routine printing as part of its daily operations. While the court might initially consider the unauthorized repetition of a libel as a novus actus interveniens, disrupting the causal link between the original publication and the resulting harm, under specific circumstances, the reiteration of the libel's essence by an unauthorized third party can be regarded as a foreseeable and likely consequence of the original publication. In such cases, the original publisher could be held liable for damages related to the repetition, depending on the particular details of the case. The individual responsible for initiating defamation, whether through spoken or written means, should assume accountability for all subsequent republications that naturally and foreseeably result from the original act. However, this liability should constitute a singular cause of action, encompassing statutes of limitations, venue considerations, and other legal aspects relevant to seeking redress for actual injuries or those anticipated in the future. Furthermore, the option for injunctive relief against further republication should be available when there is an opportunity to evaluate triable issues of fact. Republishers of defamation are typically held liable to a similar extent as the originator, except when they are unaware of the defamatory nature of the content. This includes entities such as local newspapers that receive news releases from national services. Exceptions may apply for unverifiable news causing undue disruption. Radio and TV broadcasters are also subject to liability, except for extemporaneous defamations by non-employee individuals, particularly if unforeseeable or unpreventable. Riddhi Goyal is an Associate at the Chambers of Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Advocate, while Amisha Priyadarshini Dash & Mohd. Ali Hasnain Niazi are law students currently in their 4^th and 3rd year respectively. Daniel Hemel & Ariel Porat, Free Speech and Cheap Talk, 11 J. LEGAL ANALYSIS 46, 52 (2019). Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 451 (2011) (holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve as a defense in some tort suits, including those suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress) William H. Painter, Republication Problems in the Law of Defamation, 47 VA. L. REV. 1131, 1152 & n.77 (1961) (reporting that a republisher could “protect itself by a contract of indemnity with the news service . . .” or by purchasing liability insurance). Barry v. Time Inc., 584 F. Supp. 1110, 1122–23 (N.D. Cal. 1984). ^{AIR 1998 SC 2117} ^{John Rawl, A Theory of Justice, 84 (Universal Law Publishing Co., New Delhi, 6th Indian Reprint, 2013).} Duke of Brunswick & Luneberg v. Harmer, 14 Q.B. 185, 117 Eng. Rep. 75 (1849), is the earliest leading decision. As indicated by the discussion in section II infra, the doctrine there enunciated has given rise to a host of similar decisions with the result that a modification of this principle, known as the "single publication" rule has been developed. See 1 HARPER & JAMES, TORTS ?? 5.16, 5.18 (1956) [hereinafter cited as HARPER & JAMES]; Prosser, Interstate Publication, 51 MicH. L. REV. 959 (1959). See generally notes 21-29 infra E.g., Draper v. Hellman Commercial Trust & Sav. Bank, 203 Cal. 26, 263 Pac. 240 (1928); see PROSSER, TORTS 600 (2d ed. 1955); cf. Bander v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 313 Mass. 337, 47 N.E.2d 595 (1943). The Earl of Northampton's Case, 12 Co. Rep. 132, 77 Eng. Rep. 1407 (Star Chamber 1613). ^{G. Chandrashekara Pillai v. G. Raman Pillai, 1964 Ker LT 317} ^{(1868) 3 QB 396} ^{Chandrashekara v. Kartikeyan, AIR 1964 Ker 277 : (1964) 2 Cr LJ 549: 1964 Ker LJ 422 : ILR (1964) 2 Ker 231 ; Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 Punj 215 : (1961) 1 Cr LJ 710.} ^{AIR 1968 Calcutta 266} ^{Slipper v. British Broadcasting Corp., (1991) 1 AIR ER 165}

SC seeks reply from EC, Centre on petition for complete count of VVPAT Slips

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

In a significant development, the Supreme Court requested responses from both the Election Commission and the Centre regarding a petition seeking a full count of VVPAT slips in elections, contrasting with the current practice of verifying only five randomly chosen EVMs through VVPAT paper slips. VVPAT, which allows voters to verify their votes, generates a paper slip stored in a sealed cover for potential disputes. Previously, the court had mandated the Election Commission to increase the number of EVMs undergoing VVPAT verification from one to five per assembly segment in a parliamentary constituency. The bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, acknowledged the arguments made by lawyers representing activist Arun Kumar Agrawal, who advocated for a complete count of VVPAT slips. Notices were issued to the Election Commission and the central government, with the hearing potentially scheduled for May 17. Agrawal's legal team challenged the Election Commission's guideline requiring sequential VVPAT verification, proposing simultaneous verification to expedite the process. Despite the government's substantial investment in VVPATs, only a fraction of the VVPAT slips are currently verified. The plea stressed the necessity for comprehensive VVPAT verification in light of concerns raised by experts and numerous past discrepancies between EVM and VVPAT vote counts, advocating for voters to physically deposit their VVPAT slips in the ballot box for proper verification.

Delhi liquor scam: Delhi court extends Arvind Kejriwal’s ED custody till April 1

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court on Thursday granted a four-day extension to the Enforcement Directorate's remand of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was arrested in connection with the liquor scam. Kejriwal was arrested on March 21, and on March 22, the ED requested a 10-day remand. Judge Kaveri Baweja, after considering arguments from both sides, initially ordered a six-day remand for Kejriwal. Following the completion of this initial remand period, ED prioduced Kejriwal before Judge Baweja at Rouse Avenue Court on March 28. The Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, informed the court that certain facts require confirmation by Kejriwal, who is allegedly uncooperative. Furthermore, digital data verification is pending, and individuals from Goa have been summoned for interrogation alongside Kejriwal. Consequently, the ED sought a seven-day extension of remand. After hearing arguments court extended Kejriwal remand for Five Days till 1st of April. Earlier, Arvind Kejriwal requested a moment to address the court. The court gave him five minutes. Kejriwal told the court that his name has appeared in only four cases. He questioned whether a statement was sufficient ground for the arrest of a Chief Minister, citing a statement alleging that he provided documents to Sisodia in the presence of others. Kejriwal said that it is frequent visits of MLAs to his residence, how to keep remember, when and which documents were given. How can this be explained? Kejriwal cited the statement of witness Raghav Magunta, and said that his testimony was manipulated by putting pressure on him. Kejriwal said that the ED did not find statements favorable to me in the 25,000 pages, only those statements which were against me. The bail granted to Magunta pointed out the inconsistencies in his statements. Similarly, Kejriwal mentioned the statements of Sharad Reddy. Kejriwal said Justice Sanjeev Khanna's comment on the alleged bribe of Rs 100 crore in which he has considered the case of giving bribe as suspicious. He accused the ED of conducting a biased investigation with the aim of defaming the Aam Aadmi Party and collecting money through intimidation. Kejriwal accused the BJP of accepting donations worth Rs 55 crore from Sharad Reddy and said the ED's aim was to disrupt his party. Addressing his legal representatives, Kejriwal requested to submit the electoral bond documents in the court. He announced his readiness for custodial investigation by ED. Advocate SV Raju, representing the ED, opposed Kejriwal's claims and insisted that these should be taken into consideration during the trial.

Delhi High Court rejects plea to remove Arvind Kejrival as the Chief Minister of Delhi

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Delhi High Court declined a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the ousting of Arvind Kejriwal, who has been detained by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a liquor policy case, from his position as Chief Minister of Delhi. The court stated that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal barrier prohibiting the arrested CM from retaining his office. They emphasized that there's no room for judicial intervention as the executive is handling the matter, and any constitutional issues would be addressed by the President or Governor. The petitioner argued that a Chief Minister facing financial allegations shouldn't continue in office, but the court dismissed this assertion. The petitioner contended that a jailed CM would be unable to carry out official duties, leading to a breach of secrecy and undermining governance, but the court didn't find merit in these claims. Despite statements from AAP Ministers indicating Kejriwal's intention to remain in office, the petitioner urged the court to remove him through a writ of Quo Warranto, questioning his authority to hold the position. Additionally, the petitioner filed another PIL to prevent Kejriwal from issuing directives while in ED custody, which is yet to be listed.

600 Lawyers come together and write to the CJI claiming political groups trying to “Defame Law”

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

A collective of legal professionals, among them senior advocate Harish Salve and Bar Council of India chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra, have communicated to the Chief Justice of India, asserting that a particular interest group is endeavoring to exert influence on the judiciary and tarnish the reputation of courts using unsubstantiated arguments and entrenched political motives. Their communication, dated March 26 and addressed to CJI DY Chandrachud, highlights the apparent exertion of pressure in political cases, particularly those concerning allegations of corruption against political figures. The letter, circulated by official sources, indirectly targets a subset of lawyers who purportedly defend politicians by day and seek to sway judges through media channels at night. The group accused this faction of fabricating narratives about a supposedly superior past era of the judiciary, contrasting it unfavorably with current circumstances, with the aim of influencing court decisions for political advantage. The letter, titled "Judiciary Under Threat-Safeguarding Judiciary from Political and Professional Pressure," was reportedly endorsed by approximately 600 lawyers, including Adish Aggarwala, Chetan Mittal, Pinky Anand, Hitesh Jain, Ujjwala Pawar, Uday Holla, and Swarupama Chaturvedi. Although the lawyers behind the letter refrain from citing specific cases, their concerns emerge amid ongoing high-profile corruption trials involving opposition figures. Opposition parties have accused the central government of engaging in political vendettas, a claim rejected by the ruling BJP. Notable lawyers within these opposition ranks have united against the recent arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case linked to Delhi's excise policy.These lawyers accuse critics of insinuating that courts in the past were more susceptible to influence, thereby eroding public trust in the judiciary. They condemn such behavior as detrimental to the judiciary's integrity and assert that concocting theories of "bench fixing" and comparing Indian courts to those lacking rule of law constitute disrespectful attacks on the judiciary's honor. Furthermore, they criticize these critics for adopting a selective approach, praising decisions they agree with while disparaging and disregarding those they disagree with. The letter alleges attempts to influence the selection of judges and spread misinformation on social media to sway their decisions. Questioning the timing of these actions amid impending elections, the lawyers recall similar incidents in 2018-2019 and urge the Supreme Court to take decisive action to safeguard the judiciary from such alleged assaults. They emphasize the importance of the CJI's leadership during these challenging times, urging against maintaining a passive stance that could inadvertently empower those seeking to undermine the judiciary.

Bombay High Court Decided Not To Participate Action Against Lawyer Whose Bar Council Id Card Expired; Certificate Of Practice Subsists

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Bombay High Court in the case observed and has decided not to initiate any further action against advocate Avnendra Kumar, who had appeared without a valid identity card during a recent bail hearing, after accepting his unconditional apology. The bench headed by Justice Karnik in the case observed that if in any case the Certificate of Practice issued by the Bar Council of India subsists, which could not be produced before the coordinate bench, hence any further action is now not necessary. The court observed that when Kumar appeared before a coordinate bench on March 13, wherein seeking adjournment in a bail application filed by advocate Abdul Karim Pathan on behalf of an accused. Therefore, the Kumar’s identity card issued by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh expired on December 31, 2022. The bench while expressing concerns directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate appropriate action against Kumar for appearing without proper registration. The bench headed by Justice M.S. Karnik in the case observed and has filed an affidavit explaining that he had asked Kumar to appear and seek adjournment as he was unwell that day. Pathan stated he was unaware that Kumar’s UP identity card had expired. Further, the Kumar produced his Certificate of Practice issued by the Bar Council of India, which was still valid, though he could not renew his identity card due to personal tragedies like his father’s demise in 2021. The bench of Justice Karnik in the case observed that while the Kumar’s identity card had lapsed, his Certificate of Practice remained subsisting. The court in the case noted that since Kumar had not filed an appearance and was merely asking for an adjournment on Pathan’s instructions, the matter need not be ‘precipitated any further.’ The Kumar also assured that he had no intention of misleading the court. Further, it has been submitted by the Bar Council’s representative that since Kumar was not registered with them, it was outside their jurisdiction to take action. The bench of Justice Karnik disposed of the matter without initiating any further proceedings against Kumar. During the first hearing, another issue that arose was of two bail applications being filed for the same accused. Pathan explained that he had filed the second bail application on the instructions of the accused’s family. He in the case stated that they were unaware that the accused Moinoddin Golder had filed an application through prison. Accordingly, the court accepting an apology realising a genuine mistake was made.

Karnataka High Court: Appellate Authority’s Order Under Section 70 Is Final, High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal | Chit Funds Act

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Karnataka High Court in the case M/S Margadarsi Chits (k) Pvt.Ltd And H Srinivas Reddy And Others observed and has held that there is only one statutory appeal against an order passed under Section 69 of the Chit Funds Act and an order passed by the Appellate Authority as stated under Section 70 of the Act is final and no appeal lies against it before the High Court. The single bench headed by Justice M.I. Arun in the case observed and has dismissed the petition filed by M/s Margadarsi Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd which had challenged the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Chits. In the present case, the petitioner file the plea that H Srinivas Reddy had subscribed to a chit issued by the petitioner. Thus, on him defaulting in payments proceedings were initiated against him by the petitioner before respondent the Deputy Registrar of Chits who passed an order in favour of the petitioner herein holding that respondent No.1 is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,74,325 with costs and interest. Aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the Reddy as stated under Section 70 of the Act, before respondent No.7. The court while allowing the first appeal that respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any amounts to the petitioner. The bench in the case referred to section 70 and has stated that there is only one appeal provided in the statute against the order passed under Section 69 of the Act. Any order passed under Section 70 of the Act shall be final. The court in the case observed and has held that the petitioner in the instant case is not alleging that any of its fundamental rights is violated nor it is able to show that any of the principles of natural justice have been violated by respondent No.7, nor is it a case where the order impugned is passed without jurisdiction. Adding to it, the court stated that it being not the case of the petitioner that the law has been erroneously interpreted by the respondent No.7. The said court in exercise of its power as stated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the order passed under Section 70 of the Act. Thus, it cannot delve into a disputed question of facts. The court observed while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has held that it being the case of the petitioner that the facts have not been properly appreciated by the Appellate Authority i.e., respondent No.7 and that respondent No.1 is liable to pay amounts to the petitioner as alleged. Thus, the said allegation has reached finality by the order passed by respondents No.7 and this Court in exercise of its powers as stated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the same. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition. The counsel, Advocate K.L. Patil appeared for R1. The counsel, Advocate V.S. Kalasuramath HCGP represented R6 & R7.

Supreme Court Issued Notice In Plea Over OBC Exclusion From Reservation In Bihar Municipal Bodies

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court in the case Sunil Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors., observed and has issued notice in the petition raising the issue of exclusion of Other Backward Classes, OBCs from the scope of ‘triple test’ for reservation in Municipal Elections of Bihar. The bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing the present case. The court in the case was hearing the petitioner’s challenge to a Patna High Court judgment passed on January 31, which dismissed his writ petition pertaining to the issue. The said question came up before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, which vide judgment dated October 4, 2022, wherein the court declared that the reservation of seats for OBC and Extremely Backward Classes in urban local body elections of the state was illegal, as the quotas ‘failed two out of three tests’ set by the Supreme Court in the case Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Further, the High Court directed the State Election Commission, SEC to re-notify seats reserved for OBC in the local polls as general category seats. The court observed that when the review proceedings were initiated in respect of the judgment by the respondent-state, a ‘Dedicated Commission’ was formed to complete the ‘triple test’ exercise. Thus, the said commission submitted a report on EBCs, excluding OBCs from the ambit of the survey. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a fresh writ petition before the High Court, in which the impugned judgment came to be passed. The judgement passed concluded that the earlier judgment of October, 2022 did not hold consideration of reservation only for EBCs to be illegal and bad. The court also relied on the case Dr K Krishna Murthy v. Union of India, which focused on the interpretation of Article 243D(6) and Article 243T(6) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the said articles authorize the enactment of laws allowing reservations for backward classes in panchayats and municipal bodies, respectively. The Supreme Court in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali propounded the triple test, which is to be followed before providing reservation to the OBC category. In terms of this test, the government shall: 1.Set up a dedicated commission to conduct a rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of the backwardness in local bodies; 2.To Specify the proportion of reservation required in local bodies in light of recommendations of the commission, so as not to fall foul of overbreadth; 3.To Ensure reservation for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together does not exceed an aggregate of 50 per cent of the total seats. The counsel, Advocate on Record Rahul Shyam Bhandari moved the present petition.

Delhi High Court Hosts International Judicial Conclave On Intellectual Property Rights

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Delhi High Court hosted the International Judicial Conclave on Intellectual Property Rights at the auditorium and judges’ lounge, S Block on March 16 to March 17, 2024. The event organised was being co-hosted by Delhi Judicial Academy, the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the United States Department of Justice. The said event had sessions on various topics which includes like protecting and enforcing intellectual property in new digital ecosystems, navigating standard essential patient, SEP litigation, cross border intellectual property enforcement and criminal remedies, addressing digital piracy, online counterfeiting and trade secrets and breach of confidentiality and current issues in industrial designs. The following are the panelists for the sessions on March 15: The Hon’ble Ms Justice Hima Kohli, Supreme Court of India The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma, High Court of Delhi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhamed Mustaque, Kerala High Court The Hon’ble Mr. K.M. Kamrul Kadar, Judge, High Court Division of Supreme Court of Bangladesh The Hon’ble Ms Amali Ishanthi Kumar Ranaweera, Judge, Civil Appeal, High Court, Sri Lanka The Ms Kiyo A Matsumoto, District Judge US District Court for the Eastern District of New York The Hon’ble Mr Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Judge, Supreme Court of India The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal, Judge, Delhi High Court The Hon’ble Ms. Naima Haider, Judge, High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh The Ms Virginia Maria Covington, Senior District Judge, US District Court for the Middle District of Florida Mr. Shanaka Harshan Kekunawela Pathiranga, Additional Magistrate, Chief Magistrate’s Court, Sri Lanka Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, Judge, Delhi High Court The Hon’ble Mr. Jagath Ariyakaruna Kahadagamage, Judge, Commercial High Court, Sri Lanka Ms Virginia Maria Covington, Senior District Judge, US District Court for the Middle District of Florida Ms Kiyo A Matsumoto, District Judge, US District Court for the Eastern District of New York Mr. Ashok Kumar Chhetri, Joint Secretary, Judicial Council Secretariat, Government of Nepal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, Judge, Delhi High Court Honble Mr. Kumar Regmi, Justice , Supreme Court of Nepal Mr Michael Frank, Magistrate Judge US District Court for the Northern District of Florida Mr. Sandum Shyam Kumar Withana, District Judge, District Court, Sri Lanka Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate The James S. Yoon, International Computer Hacking and IP (ICHIP) Attorney Advisor for Asia, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Consulate General for Hong Kong & Macau The sessions were moderated by Shwetasree Majumder, Pravin Anand, Adarsh Ramanujan and Saif Khan. The key points from the sessions were that copyright and patent laws across jurisdictions will have to evolve to reflect development in technology, which includes the rise of AI-assisted inventions and AI-generated content. Further, there was consensus amongst the panellists that courts in a single jurisdiction should avoid setting a global FRAND rate for a given SEP. It was also discussed that the question as to whether personality or publicity rights should be considered an independent proprietary right or it should fall under the purview of privacy law is a subject of ongoing debate. The panelists for the sessions on March 16 were: The Hon’ble Mr Justice Manmohan, Acting Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Judge, High Court of Delhi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Judge (Retd.) Supreme Court of India The Honble Mr. Brajesh Pyakurel, Judge, High Court of Patan, Nepal The Hon’ble Mr. Jeyaramam Trotsky, Judge, Colombo High Court, Sri Lanka The Ms Kiyo A Matsumoto, District Judge US District Court for te Eastern District of New York The Hon’ble Ms Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, Judge, Calcutta High Court The Hon’ble Mr Koruwage Priyantha Fernando, Judge, Commercial High Court, Sri Lanka Mr. Michael Frank, Magistrate Judge, US District Court for the Northern District of Florida Prof. (Dr.) Pushpa Kumar Lakshmanan, Law Centre-1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi Prof. Yogesh Pai, National Law University (Delhi) The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice (Retd.), Nainital High Court The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh Judge (Retd.), Delhi High Court Ms Virginia Maria Covington, Senior District Judge, US District Court for the Middle District of Florida Mr. Habakala Kankanamage Naleen Prasanna Alwis, Chief Magistrate, Chief Magistrate’s Court, Sri Lanka Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Advocate The sessions were being moderated by Swathi Sukumar, J. Sai Deepak and Hemant Singh. The panelists discussed that restrictions and the limitations on Intermediary liability is an important facet while dealing with digital piracy and that Indian. The courts have passed seminal decisions exploring the scope of intermediary liability, which includes the case of MySpace and Google v. DRS. Therefore, the penallists discussed the Indian Law Commission Report which pertains to the trade secrets. Thus, the lacuna of the current regime was considered in the light of the Report, and it was acknowledged that the same have been addressed by the Report to some degree. Further, it was also discussed that in the US overlaps are quite common but unlike in India, in the US, design law does not take away someone’s right to also claim IP rights other than that under the Designs Act.

Allahabad High Court Dismissed Jauhar Decision’s Of Cancelling Land Lease

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Allahabad High Court in the case observed and has dismissed the challenge made to the cancellation of the lease of Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar University’s land in the state’s Rampur District. In the present case, the writ petition has been moved challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s move to seize the land by voiding the lease deed associated with the University. The State Government in the case cancelled a 3.24-acre land lease to Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauhar Trust, led by former UP minister Azam Khan, citing lease condition violations alleging that originally allocated for a research institute, a school was running on the property. As per the rules, after the cancellation of the lease, the possession of land automatically goes to the government. The Division bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra in the case observed and has reserved its verdict in the matter after hearing both parties days after it listed Jauhar University Trust’s plea for ‘urgent admission’ in December 2023. The bench in the case observed and has directed the State government to keep the helpline for children of Rampur Public School operative till the end of the academic year 2023-24. The court noted that during the hearing in the case, the Advocate General had defended the cancellation of the lease without show cause notice on grounds that public interest is of paramount consideration. It was also argued before the court that the land which was acquired for the purpose of higher learning (research institute) was being used to run the Rampur Public School. While defending the cancellation of the lease on grounds of blatant misuse of government land by erstwhile cabinet minister Mohammad Azam Khan, Advocate General Ajay Kumar Mishra had alleged that Former UP Minister Azam Khan while sitting as a cabinet minister, holding the portfolio of Minister of Minority Affairs, headed the Trust in the capacity of its chairman, which was a conflict of interest. The counsel, Senior Advocate Amit Saxena had alleged a violation of principles of natural justice in the cancellation of the lease deed and sealing of the property by the UP government. Therefore, it was the primary contention of the Trust that no notice was served upon any member of the committee or the trust itself before action was taken against the Research Institute and that the report of the Special Investigation Team was never served upon the petitioner trust. It was also argued before the court that had the petitioner been confronted with the material which was relied upon to cancel the lease and seal the premises, it could have replied adequately. The court observed that in the absence of any material or evidence and lack of knowledge as to why the lease was being cancelled, the petitioner was not in a position to file a reply to the State.

KOVIND Panel’s Vision: Advancing One Nation One Election for Electoral Efficiency

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Introduction: The largest democracy in the world, India, is well known for its dynamic electoral system, which is exemplified by the numerous state and national elections that are held at various intervals. This multi-layered election calendar, though, has frequently come under fire for its financial load, disruptive effects on governance, and logistical difficulties. The idea of ‘One Nation One Election’ (ONOE) has surfaced as a possible way to simplify India’s election process in response to these worries. This article explores the reasoning behind ONOE, as well as its possible advantages, difficulties, and the current discussion about its application. Elections for the federal government and state governments should be held simultaneously in order to reduce the frequent disruptions brought on by varying polling dates. presently elections are held in some parts of the nation nearly annually, which creates a never-ending cycle of campaigning, breaks in government, and policy gridlock. In addition to taxing the Election Commission of India’s resources, this disjointed election calendar distracts lawmakers from important governance concerns. Proponents of ONOE contend that scheduling state and federal elections in tandem would improve administrative effectiveness and lower the costs related to holding independent surveys. India is projected to spend billions of rupees on election preparation, which includes costs for personnel, security, and logistics. The government might save a great deal of money by consolidating elections, money that could then be put towards development projects. In addition, proponents of ONOE contend that synchronised elections would improve collaboration between the federal and state governments, guaranteeing consistency in the formulation and execution of policies. Additionally, it would empower voters to make well-informed decisions based on thorough evaluations of government at the state and federal levels, enhancing democracy. Potential Benefits: There are many benefits that simultaneous election holding offers India’s electoral system. First off, by doing away with the necessity for regular election procedures, it would maximise resource use and save a significant amount of money. Second, synchronised elections would offer steady and continuous government, freeing elected officials from the diversion of campaigning to concentrate on developing and implementing policies. Thirdly, One Nation One Election (ONOE) may raise voter turnout and improve voter engagement by providing voters with a wide range of electoral options and reducing the weariness that comes with regular elections. Finally, scheduling elections in accordance with one another would simplify logistical planning, lighten the burden of election authorities, and enhance the general effectiveness of the electoral process, which would increase administrative efficiency. Major Highlights of Recommendations of the Panel: The high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind recently submitted its comprehensive report to President Droupadi Murmu, advocating for the synchronization of Lok Sabha and state assembly elections, commonly referred to as ‘One Nation, One Election.’ This report, spanning an impressive 21 volumes and comprising 18,626 pages, is the culmination of an extensive process. Beginning with its establishment in September 2023, the committee embarked on a thorough exploration of this concept, engaging in numerous consultations with various stakeholders and experts. Over the course of 191 days, the committee meticulously examined the issue, conducting 65 meetings in New Delhi and drawing upon the insights of esteemed bodies such as the Law Commission of India, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, Niti Aayog, and the Election Commission of India. Legally speaking, the committee’s report is a major step forward in the cause of simultaneous election implementation. It not only highlights the breadth of the study and consultations conducted, but it also provides a solid basis for future legal discussions and policy considerations in this area. The report delves into the necessity of amending the Constitution to enable simultaneous elections, proposing a two-step process. In the first step, simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies would be conducted without requiring ratification by the states for the constitutional amendment. In the subsequent step, elections for municipalities and panchayats would be synchronized with national and state elections, necessitating ratification by at least one-half of the states. Furthermore, the committee suggests amending the Constitution to facilitate the preparation of a single electoral roll and electoral photo identity cards for all tiers of government. This would involve collaboration between the Election Commission of India and State Election Commissions, requiring ratification by at least one-half of the states. Addressing scenarios such as a hung House or a no-confidence motion, the committee recommends holding fresh elections to constitute the new Lok Sabha or state assembly for the unexpired term of the House. Logistical requirements for conducting simultaneous elections are also discussed, emphasizing advanced planning by the Election Commission of India in consultation with State Election Commissions. This includes deployment of manpower, polling personnel, security forces, and voting equipment to ensure free and fair elections across all tiers of government. The committee unanimously believes that simultaneous elections will bring about fundamental transformation in the electoral process and overall governance. It is argued that this approach will optimize scarce resources and increase voter participation. Moreover, the committee asserts that simultaneous elections will mitigate disruptions to governance and policy paralysis caused by the Model Code of Conduct, thereby fostering economic growth. Based on these findings, the committee strongly recommends implementing simultaneous elections nationwide. It suggests that the government should introduce necessary amendments to the Constitution and other relevant laws to facilitate this transition. In summary, the committee’s report presents a thorough analysis of the benefits and logistical considerations of simultaneous elections. It advocates for constitutional amendments and policy changes to realize this vision, aiming to streamline the electoral process and enhance governance efficiency in India. Challenges in the Implementations: ‘One Nation, One Election’ implementation presents a number of formidable obstacles. First of all, because of their disparate election cycles and administrative procedures, the federal system of India demands cooperation between the federal government, state governments, and local authorities. Given the variety of political environments and electoral customs among states, coordinating elections at all levels necessitates considerable logistical preparation and collaboration. Secondly, the proposal raises constitutional and legal complexities. Amending the Constitution to enable simultaneous elections demands careful consideration of federal principles, state autonomy, and the role of local governance. Furthermore, ensuring compliance with electoral laws and addressing potential conflicts between central and state legislations present legal hurdles. Thirdly, reaching a political agreement is difficult but necessary. Given the disparate political goals and interests, the initiative needs bipartisan support at both the federal and state levels, which could be challenging. The move might be viewed by opposition parties as an attempt to seize power, which would spark opposition and political impasse. Further, there are significant financial ramifications. A large amount of funding would be needed for voter education, election infrastructure, and security measures if elections were held simultaneously. The government faces financial challenges in allocating funds for such a large-scale project in the face of conflicting budgetary objectives. Lastly, the impact on governance and policy continuity is a concern. Simultaneous elections may disrupt the regular functioning of governments, leading to prolonged periods of caretaker administrations and policy paralysis. Maintaining governance efficiency and accountability during election cycles remains a critical challenge in transitioning to ‘One Nation, One Election’. (The Authors Are Fifth and Fourth Year Law Students at Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla.)

Supreme Court To hear Pleas To Stay Election Commission Act On March 15, 2024

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court in the case Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India observed and has agreed to hear the petitions on March 15, 2024, wherein it challenged the appointment procedure of Election Commissioners under the new Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners, the Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office Act, 2023, Act. In the present case, the petitions are moved by the Association for Democratic Reforms, ADR and Dr. Jaya Thakur, the general secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee. The bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Bela M Trivedi was hearing the present matter. The bench of Justice Khanna asked the Counsel appearing to follow proper procedure by moving a mentioning slip. It has also been informed by Justice Khanna that the petitions are listed for Friday. Justice Khanna told Advocate-on-Record Prashant Bhushan that, I just got the message from the Chief Justice, the matters are listed for Friday. Therefore, the present development comes on the heels of Election Commissioner Arun Goel’s resignation as well as the likelihood of a high-level selection panel which is headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi for filling the impending vacancies in the Election Commission by March 15. The petitioner have filed interlocutory applications wherein it seeks to direct the Union to immediately appoint a new member of the Election Commission in accordance with the decision in the case, Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India decision, wherein the court directed that appointments to the posts of chief election commissioner and election commissioners should be made by the president which is based on the advice tendered by a committee which consist of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. However, the ADR’s public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution more specifically challenges Section 7 of the Act for allegedly violating Article 14 and the basic features of the Constitution. Thus, the said section outlines the appointment process, wherein it is stated that the chief election commissioner and other election commissioners shall be appointed by the president on the recommendation of a selection committee. The committee consists of the Prime Minister as chairperson, the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People as a member, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister as another member. Accordingly, the court listed the matter listed for further consideration on March 15, 2024.

Delhi High Cout: Fraud Regarding Management Of Company Does Not Go To Root Of Contract, Dispute Is Arbitrable

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Delhi High Cout in the case Indigrid Technology Pvt. Ltd Vs Genestore India Pvt. Ltd observed and has held that fraud alleging regarding the internal management of the company does not go to the root of the contract. The single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh in the case observed and has held that the dispute concerning the lack of authority to enter into a contract are arbitrable. The bench in the case was hearing the petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that it is only required to see the existence of an Arbitration Clause. Facts of the Case: The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitration At, wherein seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from Binding Term Sheets. The Binding Term Sheet, constituting the alleged contract between the Petitioner and Mr. Manjiv Singh, who being the chairman of the Respondent company, concerned the supply of medical equipment and oxygen concentrators. The dispute arose as when it came to the notice that Mr. Singh lacked the authority to enter into such a binding term sheet on behalf of the Respondent company. Thus, the exchanged emails suggested that the supplied equipment went to another company, M/s Deckmount Electronics Pvt. Ltd., rather than of the Respondent company. On the other hand, it has been argued by the respondent that due to alleged fraud committed by Mr. Singh, a complaint was filed against him and the Petitioner company, which leads to the issuance of an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., wherein the court directed for the registration of an FIR. The respondent argued that giving the fraud allegations and the absence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties the Respondent argued that the arbitration proceedings were not tenable. Observations Made By High Court: The High Court in the case observed and has held that the binding term sheet, forming the basis of the dispute, lacked execution on the letterhead or stamp of the Respondent company. Thus, the respondent in its reply acknowledged that Mr. Singh had an honorary appointment with the company, though clarifying that it was purely honorary and did not grant him the authority to take actions on behalf of the company. It has also been held by the High Court that the question of Mr. Singh’s role and authority to bind the Respondent company was an internal matter that fell within the purview of the arbitrator. While the Respondent admitted to Mr. Singh’s honorary position, thus, the High Court held that the issue of authority should be determined by the arbitrator based on the evidence presented during the arbitration proceedings. The High Court while addressing the fraud allegations raised by the respondent, distinguished the case from the precedent A. Ayyasamy (supra). The court emphasized that the alleged fraud pertained to internal management issues and does not strike at the root of the contract. The High Court appointed Mr. Anant Palli, Sr. Adv., as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The counsel, Advocates Mr. Uttam Datt, Ms. Sonakshi Singh, Mr. Kumar Bhaskar and Mr. Aman Sanjeev Sharma appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, Advocates Mr. Aman Nandrajog, Ms. Shreya Singh and Mr. Ujjawal Malhotra represented the respondent.

Delhi High Court Clarified: Evidence Recorded In Special Enquiry Team Would Not Be Relied Upon In Departmental Enquiry Against Sameer Wankhede

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Delhi High Court in the case Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union Of India observed and has clarified that the evidence recorded in the Special Enquiry Team, SET will not be relied upon in the departmental enquiry which is proposed to be held against Sameer Wankhede as per law in relation to the Cordelia cruise drugs case. The Division bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur in the case observed and has disposed of the petition of Wankhede’s against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT on August 21 last year in so far as it is refused to quash the findings of SET. The Tribunal in the case observed and has held that NCB DGP Gyaneshwar Singh could not have been part of the inquiry team set up to probe alleged procedural lapses by Wankhede in connection with the case. Therefore, Wankhede had moved CAT challenging the report of the SET constituted by NCB’s Competent Authority to enquire into the allegations levelled against him in the manner he conducted the raid on the cruise. It has been observed by CAT that Gyaneshwar Singh, being actively involved in the investigation could not have been part of the SET, and directed that an opportunity for a hearing be given to Wankhede before taking any action. The counsel appearing for Wankhede stated that instead of pressing the plea, the bench may clarify that SET findings would not be used against Wankhede in the departmental enquiry proposed to be held against him. The court in the case disposed of the writ plea along with the accompanying applications wherein it is not clarified that the evidence recorded in the SET will not be relied upon in the departmental enquiry which may be held against the petitioner as per law. The court in the case observed and has partly allowed the appeal moved by the Central Government and modified the CAT’s order. Further, the court set aside the direction of passing a reasoned and speaking order before any action is initiated against Sameer Wankhede on the basis of the enquiry report, after granting a personal hearing to him. The bench headed by single judge disposed of Wankhede’s contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order. The single judge stated that the petition was not maintainable but granted liberty to Wankhede to approach the CAT for redressal of his grievances. In the present case, Wankhede then filed a complaint against Singh before a Delhi Court, wherein it is alleged that he harassed him during the enquiry conducted to probe the alleged procedural lapses by him in connection with the Cordelia cruise drugs case. The counsel, Advocates Mr. Viraj Dass, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul and Mr. Shadab Anwar appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, Advocates Mr. Kritiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Varun Rajawat, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Ms. Vidhi Jain, Mr. Kartik Baijal and Mr. Shreya V. Mehra, Advocates for R-1 to 4; Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Ms. Astu Khandelwal and Mr. Yasharth Shukla represented the respondent-5.

Delhi High Court Ceases Mandate Of Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Under General Conditions Of Contract

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Delhi High Court in the case Chabbras Associates vs M/s Hscc (India) Ltd and Anr. observed and has rejected the contention presented by Respondent, that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator made in accordance with the contract cannot be challenged and the only option which is being available to the petitioner is to challenge the mandate of the arbitrator. The single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma in the case observed and has emphasized that the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator as stipulated in Clause 25 of the GCC was inherently and blatantly unlawful. Facts of the Case: The Petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitration Act, wherein seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from the premature termination of a work order, assigned to the Petitioner by Respondent no.1. The work order included construction for the Director’s Residence and Residential Quarters for NIAB, with the arbitration clause outlined in Clause 25 of the GCC. Therefore, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, High Court, wherein seeking arbitrator appointment but was directed to exhaust dispute resolution mechanisms in the work agreement or GCC. The Petitioner seek resolution from Respondent No.2, the appealing authority, who rejected the claims on June 14, 2023.The Petitioner, having exhausted all remedies, formally requested the appointment of a fair, neutral, and unbiased arbitrator as per Clause 25 of GCC. On the other hand, the Respondent no.2 unilaterally appointed Sole Arbitrator without the Petitioner’s concurrence. Further, the Petitioner argued that this appointment violated principles of neutrality, independence, and impartiality. The respondent argued before the court that the arbitrator’s appointment aligned with the arbitration agreement and, since the Petitioner did not challenge the mandate, thus, the petition should be dismissed. Observations Made by High Court: The High Court in the case observed and has held that it is a well-established legal principle that an arbitration agreement allowing only one party the exclusive right to appoint an arbitrator is inherently flawed and contrary to legislative intent. The court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case Perkins Eastman Architect DPC and Anr. vs. HSCC, wherein the High Court held that that the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is invalid. It firmly held that the provision in Clause 25 of the GCC, empowering unilateral appointment, is vitiated. The court while rejecting the contentions of the respondent that the appointment aligned with the contract and challenging the arbitrator’s mandate was the only recourse. The High Court held that the unilateral appointment, as per Clause 25 of GCC, was legally flawed. The court stressed that allowing such illegality to persist merely because the petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, and not under Section 14 and Section 15, was not acceptable. The High Court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has held that the arbitrator’s mandate shall cease to operate. The court appointed Justice Vipin Sanghi, Former Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The counsel, Advocates Ms. Krishna Parkhani appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, Advocates Mr. Harshit Agarwal, Mr. Kamal Kumar and Mr. Baldev Singh represented the Respondent no.1 and respondent no.2.

Kejriwal moves Sessions Court to challenge ED summons

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has lodged a challenge in the Sessions Court against the summons issued by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in response to complaints from the Enforcement Directorate regarding his alleged non-compliance with summons related to the Delhi liquor policy money laundering case. The matter is set to be heard by Special Judge Rakesh Syal this afternoon. Last week, the magistrate acknowledged the Enforcement Directorate's second complaint and issued fresh summons for Kejriwal to appear in court on March 16, 2024. This follows a previous complaint where Kejriwal appeared virtually before the court, citing scheduling conflicts due to confidence and budget sessions. Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta represented Kejriwal and requested an exemption, promising his physical presence on the next court date. The magistrate granted the exemption for the current hearing and scheduled Kejriwal's physical appearance for March 16, 2024. Despite the assertion by Delhi Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj that the ED's summons are unlawful, Kejriwal opted to participate virtually to avoid potential illegal arrest, aiming to address the ED's questions while safeguarding against any ulterior motives.

Uniform Civil Code, A Structured Approach That Incorporates Historical Background, Legal Precedents, Comparative Analysis, And Current Debates

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

While the whole of Bharat is contemplating whether the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code is feasible or not or whether the draft coming up would be able to accommodate the whole of diversified cultures and practices, it becomes important to dig back into the nitty-gritty of the concept and take a look at its necessity in the contemporary times. A system of rules that regulate personal concerns for all individuals, regardless of religion, such as marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, and succession, is known as a uniform civil code. The UCC seeks to supersede the various personal laws already in force, which differ according to religious affiliations. It is very well enshrined under Article 44[1] of the Indian Constitution under the Directive Principles of State Policy. Actually, the 1954 Special Marriage Act[2] permits any citizen to get married without the purview of any unique religious personal law, making Goa the sole state with a common family law. Recently, Uttarakhand has also become the first state to present a draft of UCC and the process for the same is being followed so as to validate its implication. When the question of its need arises, it becomes necessary to outline the significance of the said code because a secular democratic nation like India has to create universal civil and personal laws for all of its citizens in the current period since different laws should not apply to different classes, castes, genders, racial groups, and religions but a holistic uniform law is necessary as to erode the archaic practices against women and sometimes men in different cultures and religions which harm the basic dignity and rights of the individuals. It is a well-known fact that practically all faiths have personal regulations that are skewed towards men. Usually, discrimination against women occurs during inheritance or succession planning. There is a chance that UCC will achieve gender parity. The favouritism of various faiths' personal rules towards the patriarchal notion of society causes some very grave issues. Common law implementation can close these gaps and remove prejudices among Indian residents. Equal treatment for all Indians is required, and a Uniform Civil Code makes this possible. The personal laws of the religious communities are not equal in the current situation. For example, Muslims in India are permitted to marry more than once. However, if a Hindu or Christian did the same, they might get into trouble with the law. Such disparities go counter to the notion of equality in our nation. Therefore, UCC may guarantee that every Indian is treated fairly by establishing uniform laws pertaining to marriage, inheritance, family problems, and property ownership. Article 44[3] says, “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” but the scope and its implication in the present day Bharat has to be analysed. India features a distinctive fusion of the codified personal laws of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Parsis. All Indians do not live under a single statute book that has all of the family-related laws that are acceptable to the several coexisting religious communities in India. But the bulk of them think that UCC is unquestionably desirable and would significantly contribute to the fortification and consolidation of Indian nationalism but the basic structure of the constitution that was enshrined under the Keshvananda Bharti Vs. The State of Kerala[4] such as the sensitive articles of 25[5] and 26[6] of the Indian Constitution. There are disagreements over when and how it should be accomplished. It is the responsibility of political and intellectual leaders to work towards a consensus rather than utilising it as a wedge issue to further their political agendas. Therefore, it becomes important to trace the historical background and dig into the whole debate of as to the necessity of UCC. The British Government created uniform rules for crimes, evidence, and contracts in 1840 based on the Lex Loci report; nevertheless, they purposefully left some personal laws belonging to Muslims and Hindus in place. However, the judiciary of British India allowed British judges to use English, Muslim, and Hindu law. Reformers were also vocal in those days, advocating for laws that would protect women from discrimination on the basis of religious practices such as Sati, etc. The members of the Constituent Assembly, which was established in 1946 in Independent India, were divided into two groups: those who, like Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, wished to reform society by implementing a Uniform Civil Code, and others who were essentially Muslim delegates who upheld personal laws. Additionally, minority communities in the Constituent Assembly criticised the supporters of the Uniform Civil Code. Because of this, Article 44 of the DPSP (Directive Principles of State Policy) adds just one sentence to the Constitution. Since it is a part of the DPSP, minorities, particularly Muslims, feel that it violates or annuls their own laws, therefore neither political disagreement nor enforcement in court is possible. Then, a number of bills known as the Hindu Code Bill were passed to codify Hindu laws. These bills included the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955[7], the Hindu Succession Act of 1956[8], the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956[9], and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956[10]. These bills covered Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and various Hindu religious denominations. They also eliminated bigamy and polygamy and gave women the right to divorce and inheritance. There has been a lot of judicial discussion on the legality and the jurisprudence behind the concept of the Uniform Civil Code and therefore understanding the judicial as well as the government’s side of the case. Firstly, the Shah Bano Case is mostly known as Muhammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum[11]. Shah Bano filed for maintenance under section 125[12] of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this Supreme Court case in 1985 after her husband gave her a triple talaq divorce after 40 years of marriage and refused to give her regular maintenance. Shah Bano was granted a favourable ruling by the Supreme Court through the use of section 125 of the Indian Criminal Code, which is applicable to all people regardless of their faith. Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud then noted that by eliminating differing allegiances to the law, a Common Civil Code would further the cause of national integration. Thus, the court gave Parliament the order to draft a UCC. However, the Rajiv Gandhi government was not happy with the court's ruling and, rather than backing it, passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986[13], which overturned the Shah Bano case's Supreme Court ruling and allowed Muslim Personal Law to take precedence in divorce cases. According to this act, a Muslim woman's claim to maintenance is limited to three months following her divorce, or iddat, after which it is transferred to her family or the Wakf Board. In the Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India[14] case, the Supreme Court again instructed the government to follow Article 44. The issue concerned whether a Hindu spouse who was married under Hindu law could legally enter into a second marriage by converting to Islam. The Supreme Court ruled that it is a misuse of personal laws to convert to Islam in order to get married again. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[15] stipulates that a Hindu marriage can be dissolved. This means that merely changing to Islam and being married again does not nullify the Hindu marriage law and will be punishable under Section 494(5) of the Indian Penal Code.[16] In 1997, John Vallamatton, a priest from Kerala, filed a writ suit, claiming that Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act discriminated against Christians by placing unjustifiable limitations on their ability to donate property by will for religious or charitable purposes. The section was declared illegal by the bench, which included Chief Justice of India V.V. Khare, Justice S.B. Sinha, and Justice A.R. Lakshamanan. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act[17] appears to be an attempt to move towards UCC after its ruling. Additionally, it made it possible for members of the Muslim community to adopt children even though it was against their own personal laws. The Union Government was once more requested by the Supreme Court of India to establish a UCC in order to eliminate gender inequity and the antiquated customs that were adhered to within the confines of personal laws. Perhaps the most important law of the day is the Common Civil Code, which would establish a set of rules to regulate everyone's personal affairs regardless of their religious beliefs. It is, in actuality, the basis of authentic secularism. Not only would a progressive change like this help put an end to discrimination against women based on their religion, but it would also fortify the nation's secular fabric and foster togetherness. Our societal structure needs to be changed because it is full of injustices, discrimination, and other issues that go against our fundamental rights. As far as we are aware, the Criminal Code is applicable to everyone in the nation, regardless of their religion, caste, tribe, or place of residence; however, there is no comparable code for divorce and succession, which are handled by personal laws. Tax law contradictions are the reason for the necessity of UCC. It also addresses the issue of honour killings by extra constitutional entities like Khap Panchayats. For example, Muslims are exempt from paying stamp duty on gift deeds, whereas Hindu Undivided Families are not subject to taxes. In India, the UCC has been a divisive topic with a range of sociopolitical ramifications. Advocates contend that the UCC would advance national integration, secularism, and gender justice. Equal rights for women and minorities would be guaranteed, and the discriminatory sections of personal laws would be removed. It would also eliminate religious differences in civil cases, strengthening the secular foundation of the country. Additionally, it would streamline the legal system and make doing business easier by giving all citizens a common foundation. Opponents contend, however, that the UCC would infringe upon the rights to cultural diversity and freedom of religion. They contend that since individual laws are derived from the religious convictions and customs of various communities, any attempt to impose a common code would jeopardise those groups' sense of self and independence. Additionally, they worry that the UCC would be used to incite societal unrest by forcing the dominant Hindu culture on minority communities. Furthermore, they contend that since personal laws have already undergone a number of revisions, the UCC is not required and that any future changes should be achieved through discussion and consensus-building. The 21st Law Commission of India was tasked in 2016 by the Ministry of Law and Justice to investigate issues pertaining to the Uniform Civil Code, following the BJP's victory in the general election of 2014. Following extensive investigation and consultation with many parties, the Law Commission produced its report in 2018. According to the paper, "at this stage, a uniform civil code is neither necessary nor desirable." In relation to the Uniform Civil Code, Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India[18] is the most recent case. In this instance, the Union Government requested that the Supreme Court reject each and every PIL that called for a uniform civil code. The administration contended that the legislature cannot be ordered by the courts to pass legislation. The sovereign authority to pass laws rests with Parliament. But the government also claims that it is a "affront to the nation's unity" when different individuals obey various laws. It further states that the government would bring this issue to the 22nd Law Commission for consideration when the chairman and members are constituted. Recently, BJP MP Kirodi Lal Meena filed a private member's bill in the Rajya Sabha to establish the Uniform Civil Code. There were 23 votes against the measure and 63 in favour of it. It aims to establish a "National Inspection and Investigation Committee" to oversee the creation and application of the Uniform Civil Code. India is a large nation with a deep cultural history. In addition to the main faiths, each religion has its own denominations because of how culturally varied it is. They don't appear alike because of how drastically different their practices and forms of devotion are. For example, consanguineous marriage is widespread among Dravidian Hindus in southern India, while it is not observed among hindus in northern India. As a result, creating a single civil law for a nation the size of India is difficult. In terms of a unified civil code, Ambedkar thought it was desirable, but first it should be optional. In actuality, Muslims were primarily subject to Hindu law regarding succession up until 1937, with the exception of the North-West Frontier Province and the United Provinces, both located in India. Despite being the leading proponent of a universal civil code, Nehru responded that Indian culture was not ready for one when asked why his administration had not implemented one. More than 75,000 persons participated in a poll that the Law Commission conducted in 2016. The people made recommendations about how the improvements ought to be carried out. This study supports the idea that people now want the laws that are in place to be changed. In this sense, the Law Commission's recommendations are quite useful. According to the panel, the wisest course of action in the current situation is to protect the variety of personal laws while also making sure that they do not conflict with the fundamental rights protected by the constitution. Prior to anything else, the family-related personal laws need to be codified and any disparities need to be eliminated. Without a doubt, everyone's private religious liberties will be violated if a Uniform Civil Code is implemented. Freedom of conscience, as well as freedom to practise, preach, and spread religion, are guaranteed under Article 25[19]. The right of religious communities to practise their religion freely will be infringed by a uniform civil code. In a democratic nation, the majority opinion will usually win out, and if the majority's viewpoint is supported by solid evidence, the public's choice will also likely win out. There's no shortage of data to support the non-applicability of a Uniform Civil Code. From violations of religious freedom to contraventions of Article 14[20], which stipulates that persons who are diverse or unequal should be treated differently—in this case, differently according to their various religious practices and traditions. Of course, this image is not complete. Public rights are violated when people are treated differently by different laws since the same incident may result in different or no penalty at all. Hindu law forbids polygamy, however Shariat law permits a man to have more than one wife. As a result, the same circumstance will have contradicting results. The Indian population may not be prepared for the code to be enacted, but it is nevertheless imperative that it be applied in this secular, civilised society where people should not identify with any one faith. Therefore, whether it's a criminal, civil, or religious issue, every individual should be subject to the same laws in all circumstances. CONCLUSION Due to the complexity of the UCC, political, social, and legal aspects must all be carefully taken into account. It also presents threats to religious freedom and cultural variety, even while it has the ability to advance gender justice, secularism, and national cohesion. As a result, every effort to put the UCC into effect should involve close communication with all relevant parties, such as women's organisations, religious institutions, and legal professionals. It should also be applied gradually, with suitable safeguards and allowances for transitional procedures. Rather than being viewed as a danger to the fundamental ideals of equality, freedom, and variety, the UCC should be viewed as a tool for strengthening them. The UCC would be the perfect means of defending citizens' rights in a perfect state. The legislation will be progressive once it is adopted. The need for a Common Civil Code has emerged in response to the evolving needs of all citizens, regardless of faith, in order to safeguard their fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. By implementing UCC, Secularism and National Integrity can also be reinforced. Our nation's current future was intended by the writers of our constitution. Yes, they intended to implement the Uniform Civil Code at the moment of independence, but the tensions between the various communities at the time made it impractical. Even while things aren't ideal right now, they are definitely better. All that remains is for our nation's legislators to take the initiative. The outcry from the public should be dealt with later. The author Anil Mehta, is an advocate and Special Cousel, ED. Former Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh; Managing Partner, Lex Solutions; Advocates, Solicitors & Consultants. ========================================================== [1] India Const. art. 44. [2] Special Marriage Act, 1954, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1954 (India). [3] Id at. 1. [4] Keshvananda Bharti v. The State of Kerala, 1973 4 SCC 225. [5] India Const. art. 25. [6] India Const. art. 26. [7] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India). [8] Hindu Succession Act, 1956, No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India). [9] Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, No. 32, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India). [10] Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, No. 78, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India). [11] Muhammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985 (2) SCC 556. [12] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 125, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 2973 (India). [13] Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India). [14] Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India case, AIR 1995 SC 1531. [15] Id at. 7. [16] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 494, cl. 5, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India). [17] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2015, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 2015 (India). [18] Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay V Union of India ,2022 SCC OnLine SC 1594. [19] India Const. art. 25. [20] India Const. art. 14.

AMU Minorty Status

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Foundation of The College Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, a 19th-century Muslim reformer, established the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO College) in Aligarh in 1877. Through this organisation, he aimed to preserve and carefully balance Islamic beliefs and principles while introducing modern British education to the Muslim community. Though it was primarily an Islamic institution, MAO College welcomed members of other communities as well. In order to combine the MAO College and another Muslim University Association into a single university known as the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 (AMU Act) was passed on September 14, 1920. The founders of the Muslim university actively engaged and succeeded in their desire to convert and incorporate the MAO into the present AMU. Azeez Basha v. Union of India In a landmark 1967 case of S. Azeez Basha and Anr v. Union of India (1967), the Supreme Court of India examined alterations made to the Original Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act through subsequent amendments in 1951 and 1965. The bench, comprising Chief Justice KN Wanchoo and Justices RS Bachawat, V. Ramaswami, GK Mitter, and KS Hegde, deliberated on whether AMU could be classified as a non-minority institution. Their decision was rooted in the historical context of the university's establishment. The petitioners in this case argued that the amendment infringed upon their constitutional right under Article 30 (1) to create and run educational institutions. They further argued that the modifications infringed upon the institution's freedom of religion (Article 25), right to acquire property (Article 31), right to preserve culture and language (Article 29), and right to carry out religious and charitable works (Article 26(a)). While acknowledging its foundation by a Muslim leader, the court concluded that AMU's creation occurred under a pre-constitutional statute, distancing it from being solely attributed to a minority community under Article 30. Thus, the court underscored that the university was established through a statute rather than by a minority group. The Supreme Court supported the amendment, ruling that the petitioners' fundamental rights had not been infringed. The Bench reasoned that the Muslim minority neither founded nor oversaw AMU. The Court said, "It may be that the 1920-Act was passed as a result of the efforts of the Muslim minority," pointing out that the Act was enacted through central legislation. However, this does not imply that the Muslim minority founded Aligarh University when it was founded in accordance with the 1920 Act. According to their ruling, the Act's clauses "clearly show" that the AMU administration was not "vested." in Muslim Community. The 1981 Amendment In 1981, the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act of 1920 underwent its fourth amendment, marked by three significant revisions. Firstly, Section 2(1) of the 1981 Act altered the definition of "University" to specify it as an institution "Established by the Muslims of India." Secondly, Section 5 of the Amendment Act expanded the foundational purposes of the institution to include "Educational and Cultural Advancement of Muslims in India." Thirdly, the term "Establish and" was removed from the Preamble of the 1920 Act. These amendments were made following recommendations from the Beg Committee and the Minorities Commission of India. These changes effectively conferred minority status upon AMU, altering the implications of the Azeez Basha judgment. AMU v. Malay Shukla - The Allahabad High Court Judgement of 2006 The Allahabad High Court was deliberating on a legal challenge to the reservation policy for Muslim candidates. This policy involved allocating 50% of post-graduate course seats, originally designated for qualified MBBS doctors, by the University. The University argued that the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment Act 1981) altered the foundation established by the Basha Judgment. However, the single bench concluded that the University does not qualify as a minority institution. Affirming the decision of the Single bench, the division bench of the Allahabad High Court determined that, despite being founded by a minority, if it was never administered or claimed to be administered as such, it cannot be designated as a minority institution. The HC held:

relying upon the ratio in Basha, the AMU continues to be a non-minority institution and cannot claim otherwise under Article 30;
2 (1) and 5(2)(c) of the 1981 Act are considered invalid;
The removal of the words ''establish and' from the preamble of the 1920 Act by the 1981 Act is invalid and those words are restored to the preamble;
claim of the 50% Muslim quota for PGC declared unconstitutional for all and future purposes;
The Union's communication dated 25.2.2005 vetting the purported minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University by permitting their claim of Muslim reservation is quashed and set aside.

In 2016, the National Democratic Alliance government, which came to power in 2014, withdrew from the appeal, stating that it did not recognize the minority status of the University. Subsequently, the University pursued its case independently. On 12 February 2019, a three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and including Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, referred the decision in S. Azeez Basha for reconsideration by a seven-judge bench. Then, on 12 October 2023, the matter came before Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who formed a seven-judge bench, comprising himself along with Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, to hear the case. On February 1, 2024, a Constitution Bench concluded hearings and reserved judgment in the minority status case of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The Court's deliberations centered around the question of whether AMU qualifies as a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, which grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to "establish and administer" educational institutions. Arguments Being recognised constitutionally as an “Institution of National Importance” under Entry 63 of List I, AMU is the only one of the two educational institutions (the other being Benaras Hindu University) which has been bestowed this title. The petitioners argued that AMU is indeed a minority institution, citing its founding by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan with the explicit purpose of providing education to the Muslim community in India. Furthermore, they contend that AMU retained its minority status despite being incorporated under the AMU Act, 1920, as the act merely transformed the pre-existing Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College into AMU without altering its fundamental character. The respondents, on the other hand argued asserted that its establishment was through imperial legislation by the British Government, devoid of significant involvement from the Muslim community. They maintain that the conversion of MAO College to AMU under the AMU Act, 1920, led to the loss of its minority status, as stipulated by conditions imposed by the British government. The petitioners emphasize that for an institution to be considered minority-controlled, both the establishment and administration must be in the hands of the minority group, with non-minority involvement in administration being inconsequential to the institution's character. They further assert that during its inception, AMU's administration was primarily under the control of Muslims. The respondents contended that both establishment and administration by the minority group are necessary for an institution to qualify as a minority institution, which, in the case of AMU, does not apply as it was neither established nor administered by Muslims. Additionally, they argue that AMU's administration was ultimately under the control of the Lord Rector, representing the British government, with the supreme governing body holding an advisory role. Article 30's application to pre-Constitution institutions remains contentious; while precedents uphold its applicability to minority institutions established before the Constitution, opponents argue that such distinctions were absent during British rule. Regarding the Azeez Basha case, petitioners contest its legal soundness, fearing it sets a dangerous precedent for the loss of minority status upon statutory recognition, whereas respondents maintain its specificity to AMU and affirm its correctness in acknowledging AMU's establishment by the British government. In discussing AMU's designation as an institution of "national importance" under the Constitution, petitioners stress that this classification doesn't inherently affect its minority status, contrasting with respondents' assertion that such inclusion, especially under List 1 of the Constitution, implies a shift in control to the Union government, requiring a constitutional amendment for minority status preservation. Court’s Observation The bench noted that while "administrister" refers to something that is a continuous process and isn't fixed to a particular point in the past, "establish" or "establishment" is rooted in the founding moment in time. 'Of their Choice' suggests that a minority community is not only free to create an institution but also free to choose another organisation to run it without compromising the institution's minority status. The CJI noted that it would be excessive to claim that the right to establish a minority institution is only dependent upon recognition by enabling legislation in light of the center's argument that the rights under Article 30 could only be realised by an enabling provision or statutory framework. This would imply the ambiguous conclusion that a statutory right can take precedence over a constitutional one. Repeatedly, when the Centre contested the rejection of the 1981 Amendment, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) cautioned counsel against presenting arguments that might impede Parliament's unrestricted law-making authority. The CJI emphasized that when interpreting terms like 'established' within the Act, it falls within the legislature's purview to adopt a particular perspective. He underscored that arguments should not undermine Parliament's powers or its ability to enact amendments. According to the CJI, Parliament is an enduring, unified, and perpetual institution. The historical backdrop surrounding the enactment of the AMU Act and its original intent must be considered, bearing in mind that during the British Raj, regulatory structures were designed to uphold imperial dominance. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) expressed the view that the relinquishment of rights by the founders of the AMU has been interpreted with utmost stringency. What Court’s Opinion Inclined To The interpretation of Article 30's application to pre-Constitution institutions further complicates the matter. While precedents uphold its applicability to minority institutions established before the Constitution, opponents argue that such distinctions were absent during British rule. The Azeez Basha case is contested, with petitioners fearing its implications for the loss of minority status upon statutory recognition, while respondents affirm its correctness in acknowledging AMU's establishment by the British government. The court's observations shed light on crucial aspects of the debate. The distinction between "establish" and "administer" underscores the founding moment versus ongoing control, with implications for minority status. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) cautions against interpretations that impede Parliament's law-making authority, emphasizing the enduring nature of legislative power. Furthermore, the historical context surrounding the AMU Act's enactment highlights the complexities of colonial regulatory structures and imperial dominance. The CJI stresses the need to consider the original intent of the Act within this framework, suggesting a strict interpretation regarding the relinquishment of rights by the founders of AMU. Ultimately, the court's opinion suggests a reluctance to define AMU solely as a minority institution. The emphasis on legislative authority, historical context, and the role of the British government in its establishment raises doubts about its minority status. While acknowledging its historical significance to the Muslim community, the court's observations signal a broader interpretation that transcends narrow definitions of minority control. In conclusion, while AMU's founding and historical context are rooted in serving the Muslim community, the legal and constitutional complexities surrounding its establishment and administration raise doubts about its minority status. The court's observations highlight the need for a nuanced understanding that considers both historical context and legislative authority in determining AMU's institutional identity. WHY AMU Should not be minority institution Firstly, opponents argue that AMU's establishment under imperial legislation by the British government undermines its claim to minority status. They contend that the involvement of the British government in the creation of AMU, particularly through the conversion of the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College into AMU under the AMU Act of 1920, suggests a broader institutional framework beyond the control of any specific minority group. This suggests that the institution's origins were not solely rooted in the aspirations of the Muslim community but rather influenced by imperial interests. Secondly, opponents stress that AMU's administration, ultimately overseen by the Lord Rector representing the British government, further diminishes its minority character. Despite any initial Muslim control during its inception, the administrative framework of AMU was ultimately subject to imperial oversight. This indicates a significant level of non-minority influence in the governance and management of the institution, thereby challenging its designation as a minority-controlled entity. Furthermore, opponents question the applicability of Article 30 of the Indian Constitution to AMU's pre-Constitutional origins. While precedents uphold Article 30's applicability to minority institutions established before the Constitution, opponents argue that such distinctions may not be relevant in the context of British colonial rule. This suggests that the legal framework surrounding minority rights and institutions may not neatly apply to institutions established during colonial governance. Additionally, opponents highlight concerns regarding the Azeez Basha case and its implications for AMU's minority status. While petitioners fear that statutory recognition could jeopardize minority status, opponents affirm the case's correctness in acknowledging AMU's establishment by the British government. This suggests a broader interpretation of AMU's institutional identity beyond narrow definitions of minority control. from the government's standpoint, the involvement of the British government in AMU's establishment, coupled with concerns about administrative control and the applicability of constitutional provisions, raises doubts about its classification as a minority institution. These arguments underscore the need for a nuanced understanding of AMU's historical context and legal framework in determining its institutional identity. A precedent of concern: a potential harmful example Granting Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status despite the complexities and challenges presented could set a potentially problematic precedent for several reasons. Implications for Other Institutions: If AMU were granted minority status despite significant involvement from the British government in its establishment and administration, it could open the door for other institutions with similar histories to claim minority status. This could lead to confusion and legal disputes over the classification of various educational institutions, potentially undermining the clarity and consistency of minority rights in India. Erosion of Legislative Authority: Upholding AMU's minority status in the face of governmental opposition could be interpreted as undermining the authority of the legislative branch. The government's withdrawal from the appeal suggests a clear stance against recognizing AMU as a minority institution. Granting minority status against this backdrop may set a precedent of judicial overreach into legislative matters, potentially eroding the separation of powers. Challenges to Institutional Integrity: Recognizing AMU as a minority institution despite substantial non-minority involvement in its establishment and administration could undermine the integrity and autonomy of the institution. This could lead to challenges in governance, funding, and decision-making, as competing interests vie for control and influence within the university. Potential for Social Division: The classification of AMU as a minority institution could exacerbate social divisions and tensions, particularly in the context of India's diverse population. Granting minority status to an institution with such complex historical and legal considerations may be perceived as privileging one community over others, leading to resentment and discord among different religious and cultural groups. Challenges to Constitutional Principles: AMU's minority status would raise questions about the application of constitutional principles, particularly regarding minority rights and the secular nature of the Indian state. Granting minority status despite significant non-minority involvement may be seen as undermining the secular fabric of the nation and diluting the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution. Maximum Students already Muslims Granting minority status to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) solely based on the predominant religious affiliation of its student body would not only be redundant but could also lead to unintended consequences, particularly regarding institutional governance and autonomy. AMU's student population predominantly consists of Muslims, reflecting its historical mission to serve the Muslim community. In this context, officially designating AMU as a minority institution may seem redundant, as it already predominantly caters to the minority community it was intended to serve. The primary purpose of minority status is to protect the rights and interests of marginalized communities within institutions where they are underrepresented. In AMU's case, granting minority status would not substantially change the composition or representation of the student body. Designating AMU as a minority institution could inadvertently grant the administration unchecked and arbitrary power, potentially undermining institutional governance and accountability. Without appropriate checks and balances, the administration may exploit its minority status to justify unilateral decisions and actions, without adequate transparency or accountability mechanisms in place. This could lead to a concentration of power within the administration, eroding the principles of democratic governance and institutional autonomy. Granting minority status to AMU based solely on the religious affiliation of its student body could perpetuate exclusionary practices within the institution. While minority status is intended to protect the rights of marginalized communities, it should not be used to justify discriminatory practices or policies that exclude individuals from other religious or cultural backgrounds. Allowing unlimited and arbitrary power to the administration under the guise of minority status could exacerbate divisions and tensions within the institution, hindering inclusivity and diversity. Conclusion The argument for granting minority status to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) based on the predominant Muslim student population may seem plausible on the surface, a more legally sound approach necessitates careful consideration of the broader implications and underlying principles of minority rights and institutional governance. Granting minority status to AMU solely based on its student demographics could risk redundancy, as the institution already predominantly serves the minority community it was intended to represent. Moreover, such a designation could inadvertently confer unchecked and arbitrary power to the administration, potentially undermining institutional governance, transparency, and accountability. Furthermore, there is a risk that granting minority status based solely on religious affiliation could perpetuate exclusionary practices within the institution, undermining efforts to promote inclusivity and diversity. Additionally, unchecked administrative power poses a threat to academic freedom, potentially stifling intellectual discourse and innovation within AMU. A more legally sound approach to addressing the complexities surrounding AMU's minority status requires a nuanced understanding of its historical context, legal framework, and constitutional principles. Efforts should focus on promoting transparency, accountability, and inclusivity within the institution, regardless of its official minority status. This entails ensuring that institutional governance structures are robust and inclusive, with appropriate checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power and safeguard the rights and interests of all stakeholders. Ultimately, while AMU's historical mission and student demographics may reflect its commitment to serving the Muslim community, the legal and institutional complexities surrounding its minority status necessitate a careful and considered approach. By prioritizing principles of fairness, transparency, and inclusivity, stakeholders can work towards ensuring that AMU remains a vibrant and inclusive educational institution, responsive to the needs and aspirations of all its students and stakeholders, regardless of religious affiliation. The author Anil Mehta, is an advocate and Special Cousel, ED. Former Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh; Managing Partner, Lex Solutions; Advocates, Solicitors & Consultants.

Regulating Coaching Institutes: New Guidelines and Their Impact in India

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

India is a nation of hopes and dreams, with having the largest population in the world it also has the largest base of young and adult population. These young, aspiring, and desirous minds are filled with endless vivacity to achieve more and more in whatever field they are in. And to cater to this ever-expanding zeal of gaining their aim they are even ready to sacrifice their teenage time in preparing and striving for that goal. But these dreams come with a huge cost in terms of money, time, a physical as well as mental health. To fulfill this aspiration of parents, their wards come to the coaching institutes to cover the gap between the conventional educational system and competitive entrance examination system which in turn leads to the rise of uncontrolled and unregulated coaching industry. Historically, India's formal education system had various limitations, prompting students to seek additional support beyond schools. The surge in competitive exams (like IIT-JEE, and NEET) necessitated specialized coaching. Limited seats in elite colleges and an exponential increase in the number of students applying for the same intensified demand. Parents recognized coaching's role in solidifying knowledge and enhancing conceptual learning. Trust in the coaching center's ability to equip their child with sufficient knowledge to crack these overly competitive exams led to their expansion. Today, lakhs of students rely on well-known brands like Aakash and FIITJEE for successful entrance exam preparation. Over the period the competition for the seats increased manyfold as IIT-JEE has around 10,000 seats, yet more than 200,000 students show up for its entrance exams. More than 770,000 show up for the NEET for an insignificant 2,140 seats. Despite the miserable proportion of the students accepted in these engineering or medical institutes, the total number of candidates appearing for IIT-JEE or NEET goes in lakhs. But as the coin has two sides this increase in the craze of getting enrolled in well-reputed coaching centers also has its grey area. The concerns related to coaching centers in India have garnered significant attention due to their rapid proliferation and impact on students. Some of these issues are: -

Exorbitant Fees: Many coaching centers charge high fees, often putting financial strain on students and their families. This financial burden can be a deterrent for deserving students seeking additional support.
Student Stress and Mental Health: The intense competition and pressure to perform well in exams lead to high levels of stress among students. Instances of student suicides have been reported regularly, highlighting the need for a balanced approach to education.
Safety Lapses: Some coaching centers lack proper safety measures. Incidents like fires and accidents have raised concerns about student safety within these establishments. These also lack disabled and female-friendly structures further leading to the exclusivity of these students.
Lack of Regulation: Until recently, there was no comprehensive regulatory framework governing coaching centers. This lack of oversight allowed for malpractices, false claims, and unethical behaviour.
Quality of Education: While some coaching centers provide excellent guidance with exorbitant fees, others may compromise on quality. Further consistent and effective teaching practices are compromised. The method of quantity over quality makes students gain very less in classrooms.
Transparency and Marketing Practices: Misleading promises regarding ranks or marks to parents and students pose a big concern. Buying ranks and leaking of question papers are some regular accusations faced by prominent coaching institutes, which have strong political influences too.
Questionable Teaching Methodologies: Some centers employ teaching methods that may not be conducive to students' well-being or holistic development.

The private coaching sector has witnessed exponential growth, driven by the increasing demand for competitive exams and entrance tests. However, the quality of coaching centers varies significantly. Therefore, there is an urgent requirement for a robust regulatory framework to ensure that coaching institutes adhere to standardized teaching methodologies, maintain qualified faculty, and provide adequate infrastructure, by setting clear guidelines, the government can ensure that students receive consistent and high-quality education. Unregulated coaching centers often compromise student safety. Instances of fire accidents, overcrowded classrooms, and inadequate facilities can be seen easily. This comprehensive framework would mandate safety measures, including fire safety protocols, emergency exits, hygiene standards, and regular inspections that can prevent exploitation and safeguard students' physical and mental well-being. Therefore, to tackle these issues there is an urgent need for a comprehensive regulatory framework by the government keeping all the stakeholders' students, parents, coaching institutes, and policymakers in confidence is crucial. The historical context of private coaching centers in India is marked by significant shifts in the education landscape. The turning point came with the Economic Reforms of 1991, which liberalized the Indian economy. This led to a surge in demand for competitive exams and entrance tests. As students aspired to prestigious institutions like the IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology), the need for specialized coaching intensified. These economic reforms facilitated the establishment of private educational institutions across India. These institutions catered to various academic needs, including coaching. Thus, the coaching industry, once limited to academically weak students, transformed into a billion-dollar sector. Kota, a small town in Rajasthan, emerged as the epicenter of coaching centers. It gained fame for preparing aspiring engineers for the JEE-Advanced examination. The town witnessed an influx of students seeking intensive coaching to crack competitive exams. Coaching centers adopted a market-driven model, prioritizing profit maximization. The absence of a regulatory body allowed these centers to commercialize rapidly, often at the expense of students' well-being. All these factors lead the government to come up with the present guidelines. Over the years, the commercialization of coaching centers in India has been significant and it has continued to grow. In 2018, the coaching industry was worth around $6.4 billion and by 2020, it is set to more than double the estimated value of $14 billion. The success of these coaching centers nowadays is not only gauged by the performance of the students in their respective studies or selected exams but also by the wealth or income they can generate. This is because several established coaching centers now have diversified into private schools - in the case of which they promise to provide a group of selected students from their coaching centers and place them in the schools. By doing this, these private schools have higher expectations that the students will perform well in their respective studies and hence commercial success will be assured. However, coaching centers promise a better career, high reward strategies, and support towards the pursuit of knowledge. This commercialization has suffocated the moral values and the objectives of education; and as designated on the website of the Central Board of Secondary Education, the board has increasingly found that it is being approached by the schools and parents about the undue pressure exerted by the managements for the collection of the commercial fund and the high-handed behavior of such institutions. There are about 40 million (4 crore) students enrolled in various coaching institutes across the country. These institutes help students prepare for the highly competitive college entrance exams and admission into the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and National Institutes of Technology (NITs). The number of students in coaching institutes makes up about 3 percent of the total population in India. The revenue generated by the coaching industry is also very impressive. In 2018, the industry was estimated to be worth $6.73 billion, and it is expected to continue to grow in the future. One of the most famous coaching institutes, Kota's Allen Career Institute, had a revenue of $57 million in 2017. Such is the power of these institutes that the fees collected by them in total could even have an impact on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country. The industry also does not lack tax revenue, as it was estimated that coaching institutes pay around $245 million in taxes to the government. This is a very considerable amount of money, and given the rapid growth of the industry, could rise to almost $1 billion in the future. At present, the tax generated by the industry is already over 50% of the education tax in India. This demonstrates that the influence of the coaching industry is not only felt socially but also economically and politically. Given these astonishing numbers, it is surprising to find that, despite the enormous fees charged by some of the top institutes, very little is being reinvested back into them. In 2014, it was estimated that only 12% of the total revenue was spent on tutors who teach the students. Therefore, guidelines were introduced by the government so that these institutes reinvest up to 75% of the total revenue back into the institute, which could improve the quality of teaching and facilities for students. These guidelines highlight a key issue with the coaching industry, that the institutes and their corporate bodies are more focused on the material success of the institute. This demonstrates their capitalistic nature and lack of interest in the student's development, as well as questioning the ethical standing of some of the bodies involved in the industry. Data from the Ministry of Human Resource Development in India shows that the education sector got a 6.68 percent share of the total government expenditure and 546 billion rupees (in year 2014) in GDP. Out of the total contribution of the education industry to the GDP, 71 percent was from Higher Education and 18 percent was from Coaching and Preparatory Industry. This industry also employs a large workforce, having a student-teacher ratio of 28 and a compound annual growth rate of 23 percent. The coaching industry got 20 billion rupees (in the year 2014) of total revenue, including student fees and government funding. It thus generated a 0.003 percent share in the GDP and an astonishing 0.5 percent share in the total tax revenue. The Asian Development Bank's 2012 report estimated the coaching industry to be growing more than 15% each year. The shift to private sector educational providers such as coaching centers from mainstream education providers was a market response to the aspirations of the emerging middle classes and gave new hopes to students who would have otherwise not received formal technical higher education. Data from the National Sample Survey Office's 71st round reveal that more than a quarter of Indian students (a stupendous 7.1 crore) take private coaching. Around 12% of a family's expenses go towards private coaching, across rich and poor families alike. To curb this menace various state governments have come up with various legislation in their respective jurisdiction such as the Bihar Coaching Institute (Control & Regulation) Act, 2010 [Bihar Act 17, 2010], Goa Coaching Classes (Regulation) Act, 2001 (Goa Act 27 of 2001), Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Coaching Act, 2002 [UP Act no. 5 of 2002], the Karnataka Tutorial Institutions (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2001 [framed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (Karnataka Act 1 of 1995)], Manipur Coaching Institute (Control and Regulation) Act, 2017 (Act no. 8 of 2017) etc. Rajasthan Coaching Institutes (Control and Regulation) Bill, 2023 is also in the public domain and recently guidelines for reducing Stress and improving the Mental Health of Students enrolled in coaching Institutes have been issued by Govt. of Rajasthan on 27.09.2023. New education policy also envisioned various steps for reducing stress by 'focus on regular formative assessment for learning rather than the summative assessment that encourages today's 'coaching culture.' NEP 2020 in its Para 4.36 recognizes the current nature of secondary school exams, including Board exams and entrance exams, the resulting coaching culture of today, and its harmful impact. Para 4.37 of NEP 2020 suggests reform in the existing system of Board and entrance examinations to eliminate the need for undertaking coaching classes. Para 4.38 inter alia suggests introducing greater flexibility, student choice, and best-of-two attempts, assessments that primarily test core capacities and develop further viable models of Board Exams that reduce pressure and the coaching culture. Para 4.42 of NEP 2020 states that 'the principles for university entrance exams will be similar. The National Testing Agency (NTA) will work to offer a high-quality common aptitude test, as well as specialized common subject exams in the sciences, humanities, languages, arts, and vocational subjects, at least twice every year. These exams shall test conceptual understanding and the ability to apply knowledge and shall aim to eliminate the need for coaching for these exams. Students will be able to choose the subjects for taking the test, and each university will be able to see each student's subject portfolio and admit students into their programs based on individual interests and talents. Judicial activism also did not lag in passing the direction in the same matter. A PIL in WP No. 456 of 2013 in the matter of Student Federation of India Vs UOI and others was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the Ministry of Education was one of the respondents. The PIL was disposed off with the direction that the issue raised in the petition, though important, is basically a policy matter. It will be open to the petitioners to raise the issue before the concerned authorities who may consider the same in accordance with law. In the Ashok Mishra Committee Report, 2017 Dept. of Higher Education had requested States / UTs to take action for regulation and strict penalty system for deviant institutions. In this letter, States / UTs were requested to take into consideration 12 measures suggested by Justice Roopanwal Commission of Enquiry to address student suicide. Finally, in January 2024, the central government came up with the GUIDELINES FOR REGULATION OF COACHING CENTER, as education falls in Entry 25 concurrent list with the objectives: - (i) To provide a framework for registration and regulation of coaching centers. (ii) To suggest minimum standard requirements to run a coaching center. (iii) To safeguard the interest of students enrolled in coaching centers. (iv) To advise coaching centers' focus on co-curricular activities as well as the holistic development of students. (v) To provide career guidance and psychological counseling for the mental well-being of the students. Some key features of the guideline -

It defines coaching as coaching' which means tuition, instructions, or guidance in any branch of learning imparted to more than 50 students but does not include counseling, sports, dance, theatre, and other creative activities.
The coaching center existing on the date of implementation of the guidelines, shall apply for registration within a period of three months from the date of implementation of the guidelines.
In the case of a coaching center having multiple branches, each of such branches shall be treated as a separate coaching center and it shall be necessary to submit a separate application for registration of each branch.
The competent authority shall, within three months from the date of receipt of the application

for registration of the coaching center, either grant the registration certificate in the prescribed form, or shall communicate to the applicant his order of refusal to grant such registration after recording reasons in writing, for such refusal.

No coaching centre shall –

(a) engage tutors having qualifications less than graduation. (b) make misleading promises or guarantee of rank or good marks to parents/students for enrolling them in the coaching center. (c) enroll students below 16 years of age or the student enrolment should be only after the secondary school examination. (d) publish or cause to be published or take part in the publication of any misleading advertisement relating to any claim, directly or indirectly, of quality of coaching or the facilities offered therein or the result procured by such coaching center or the student who attended such class. (e) be registered, if it has less than the minimum space requirement per student. (f) hire the services of any tutor or person who has been convicted for any offense involving moral turpitude. (g) be registered unless it has a counseling system as per the requirement of these guidelines.

The coaching center shall have a website with updated details of the qualification of tutors, courses/curriculum, duration of completion, hostel facilities (if any), the fees being charged, 6 easy exit policy, fee refund policy, number of students undertaken coaching from the center and number of students finally succeeded in getting admission in Higher Education Institutions, etc.
There should be a minimum of one square meter area which may be allocated for each student during a class.
Weekly off for students as well as tutors. Class timing should neither be too early nor too late and the duration of classes should not exceed 5 hours in a day.
There is proper tabulation provided for a framework for mental health promotion by various stakeholders.
The coaching center building and the surrounding premises shall be Divyang-friendly and in compliance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Provisions for penalties are also provided in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions of registration or general conditions. While guidelines are framed to keep in mind the betterment of students as well as parents and tutors but implementation of guidelines pertaining to coaching centres involves a collaborative effort between the central and state governments and local stakeholders. Policy formulation part is done away with which is less than fifty percent part of an effective change, more will depend on proper standardization and monitoring of these rules. It will ensure that the guidelines address critical aspects such as infrastructure requirements, code of conduct, and eligibility criteria for coaching centers. By establishing uniform standards, the central government aims to enhance the quality of coaching services across the country. While the primary responsibility lies with the states, the central government monitors the overall implementation of these guidelines. It ensures that states adhere to the prescribed norms and take necessary actions against deviant institutions. State governments are directly responsible for the registration and regulation of coaching centers within their jurisdictions. They must verify the eligibility of coaching centers and ensure compliance with safety, security, and quality standards to further prevent exploitative practices and address issues related to student suicides, fire incidents, and inadequate facilities. By providing a legal framework, the government acknowledges the significance of private coaching centers and seeks to channel their efforts constructively. While immediate effects may not be apparent, the guidelines lay the groundwork for a more structured and transparent coaching industry. The prohibition on enrolling students below the age of 16 is a student-centric measure. It recognizes the vulnerability of young learners and aims to safeguard their well-being and promote a balanced approach, the guidelines prioritize holistic development. Over time, this could lead to a positive shift in the perception of coaching centers and their impact on students' lives. However, they overlook the pedagogical innovations needed to prepare students for the dynamic demands of Industry 4.0. The one-size-fits-all approach fails to recognize individual strengths and learning styles. It is also silent on the online coaching industry which is minting a lot of money on the aspirations of young ones. While mandating reasonable tuition fees is essential, the guidelines do not address the financial burden on students. Many aspirants, especially from marginalized backgrounds, struggle to afford coaching. The guidelines set minimum qualification requirements for tutors, but they do not emphasize continuous professional development. Coaching centers need well-trained educators who can adapt to changing educational paradigms. Quality audits and peer reviews should be integral to ensure coaching centers maintain high standards. Unfortunately, the guidelines do not prioritize this. While the guidelines represent a necessary step towards regulation, they must evolve beyond mere compliance. A critical lens reveals gaps in aligning with Industry 4.0, fostering innovation, and prioritizing student well-being. The government must revisit these guidelines, engage stakeholders, especially coaching industry experts and parents, and create a more robust framework that truly prepares students for the challenges of the future. The author Anil Mehta, is an advocate and Special Cousel, ED. Former Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh; Managing Partner, Lex Solutions; Advocates, Solicitors & Consultants.

Expulsion from LS: SC to Hear Moitra’s Plea today

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear a petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra, challenging her expulsion from the Lok Sabha. A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta will hear the petition, wherein the court had previously declined to provide interim relief to Moitra, who had requested permission to participate in the Lok Sabha proceedings until her plea is finally adjudicated. On January 3, the apex court had sought the response of the Lok Sabha secretariat while noting that one of the issues at hand pertains to the jurisdiction of courts and the power of judicial review in the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Lok Sabha secretary general, had urged the court not to delve into the internal disciplinary matters of another sovereign organ of the State. He had contended that Parliament can internally address disciplinary matters concerning its members through its in-house procedures, which are not subject to judicial review, thus rendering Moitra’s plea non-maintainable. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Moitra, had argued that contrary to circulating theories, the TMC leader was expelled from the Lok Sabha for sharing her parliamentary login credentials. Singhvi had stated that Moitra was expelled under a rule pertaining to hacking. On December 8 20203, following a heated debate in the Lok Sabha over a panel report, during which Moitra was denied the opportunity to speak, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi moved a motion to expel the TMC MP from the House for “unethical conduct”. The motion was adopted by a voice vote. The ethics committee of the Lok Sabha found Moitra guilty of “unethical conduct” and contempt of the House for sharing her Lok Sabha members’ portal credentials user ID and password with unauthorized individuals, which purportedly had an irremediable impact on national security, as asserted by Joshi. The committee had further recommended that due to Moitra’s “highlyobjectionable, unethical, heinous, and criminal conduct,” a comprehensive legal and institutional inquiry be initiated by the government within a specified timeframe. The motion initiated by Joshi stated that Moitra’s “conduct has additionally been found to be unbecoming as an MP for accepting gifts and illegal gratification from a businessman (Darshan Hiranandani) to further his interest, which is a serious misdemeanor and highly-deplorable conduct” on her part. Previously, the chairman of the ethics committee, Vinod Kumar Sonkar, had presented the initial panel report on a complaint lodged by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey against Moitra. In October 2023, Dubey, based on a complaint filed by Supreme Court lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, alleged that Moitra had posed questions in the Lok Sabha in exchange for cash and gifts from Hiranandani to launch an attack on industrialist Gautam Adani and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Electoral bonds: SC to hear SBI plea today

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

A five-judge constitution bench of Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday an application submitted by State Bank of India (SBI) seeking an extension of time until June 30 to disclose details of each electoral bond en-cashed by political parties before scheme was annulled last month. The bench, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, will also address a separate plea which alleges contempt against SBI, claiming it ‘wilfully and deliberately’ disregarded apex court’s directive to submit details of contributions made to political parties through electoral bonds to Election Commission (EC) by March 6, 2024. In a groundbreaking verdict delivered on February 15, a five-judge constitution bench nullified the Centre’s electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding, deeming it “unconstitutional” and mandating disclosure by the Election Commission of the donors, the donated amounts, and the recipients by March 13. Directing the immediate cessation of the scheme, the apex court ordered the SBI, the designated financial institution under the scheme, to furnish by March 6 the specifics of the electoral bonds purchased from April 12, 2019, onwards to the Election Commission, which was directed to publish the information on its official website by March 13. On March 4, the SBI petitioned the apex court seeking an extension of time until June 30 to divulge the details of the electoral bonds encashed by political parties. In its application, the SBI argued that retrieving information from “each silo” and matching the data from one silo to another would be a time-consuming process.

Supreme Court Issued Notice On Plea Challenging Telangana Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court in the case Madapathi Nagendrappa vs. State of Telangana observed and has issued the notice in the petition moved wherein challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1987. In the present case, the petition was preferred on behalf of the Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple priests, known as the Machileshwarnath Temple, against the State of Telangana. The petition filed through counsel, Advocate-On-Record Rashi Bansal has also assailed orders passed by the commissioner of endowments appointing an Executive Officer for the temple. The bench comprising of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti in the case observed and has issued the notice. The counsel, Senior Advocate Vibha Dutta Makhikja appearing for the petitioner claimed that, through these impugned orders, the Telangana Government is attempting to take over the said Temple and remove the Petitioners. It has also been argued before the court that the mentioned Act and the challenged order are ultra-vires, inter-alia, Article 14, the Equality before law, Article 25, Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion and Article 26, Freedom to manage the religious affairs. Therefore, the Act has been challenged which being on the basis that it gives the government unfettered power, as it can replace the management of any temple without any reason. The petition stated that under the said Act, the Respondent Government has unfettered powers to supersede the administration of any temple and to replace the management of any temple with a board of trustees of their choice, run by an Executive Officer, under the directions of the Respondent Government. Thus, the said power can be exercised under the Act, without the need for any cause, or reason, in a completely arbitrary fashion. The petition also cited the case Pannalal Bansilal Pittie v State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein to put forth the argument that it is not the job of officers of a secular government to run temples. Thus, it has also averred that the management and administration of a temple are an essential part of the right to religion. Further, it has been submitted before the court that the Government can only take over the management to cure financial maladministration. The court observed that the management of the said temple has to be returned. The court also referred to the case Subramanian Swamy v State of Tamil Nadu, wherein the Respondent-Government is only empowered to take over the management and administration of a temple in order to cure financial maladministration, and then the management of the said temple is to be returned to the person concerned. The court in the case held that supersession of management indefinitely would tantamount to violation of proprietary and fundamental rights. In the said case, the petition has now been filed contending that the Government has misused the provisions of this Act and appointed an Executive Officer to take charge of the Temple without prescribing any cause and in perpetuity. The counsel, Senior Advocate Vibha Dutta Makhikja appeared for the petitioner.

Supreme Court: Article 20 Does Not Prohibit Court From Imposing Lesser Punishment As Per New Law

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court in the case M/S A.K. Sarkar & C.O. & Anr. Versus The State OF West Bengal And Ors. observed that Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India does not restrain the Courts from imposing a lesser punishment on the basis of a new law which came into force after the date of commission of the offence. The court stated that Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which incorporates the principle that criminal laws cannot be given retrospective operation, states that a person cannot be punished or subjected to a higher penalty on the basis of a law which was not in force at the time of the offence. The bench comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice PB Varale in the case observed and has stated that the prohibition contained in Article 20 of the Constitution of India is on subjecting a person to a higher punishment than which was applicable for that crime at the time of the commission of the crime. This being no prohibition, for this Court to impose a lesser punishment which is now applicable for the same crime. The judgement authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia considered the question of whether the sentence imposed on the appellants under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Old Act could be converted after the introduction of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the New Act. The bench provided the benefit of the lesser sentence which is to be imposed on the accused or appellants by converting the sentence of the food company partner or appellant no.2 from three months imprisonment to Rs. 50,000/- only, after referring to the case of T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe. The Supreme Court in the case . Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe held that when an amendment is beneficial to the accused it can be applied even to cases pending in Courts where such a provision did not exist at the time of the commission of offence. The court while giving the benefit of the new Act, though it was not in force when the offence was committed, thus, the Supreme Court gave benefit to the accused or appellants by converting the sentence of imprisonment to a just fine. In the present case, the case was registered against the appellants or accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for not labeling the details of the manufacturer and the manufacturing date of the food item namely some boiled sugar confectionary as per Rule 32(c) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the 1955 Rules. The Trial Court in the case obserevd and has convicted the appellants i.e., appellant no.1 being a food company and appellant no.2 partner of the company, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Appellant no.2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine for an amount of Rs. 1,000/- each, whereas appellant no.1 was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The High Court in the case obserevd and has upheld the conviction, however, reduced the sentence of the appellant no.2 from six months to three months and maintained a fine of Rs. 1,000. The Appeallant aggrieved with the decision of High Court, approached the Supreme Court. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be dismissed for the simple reason that the appellants were charged under Rule 32 (c) and (f) of the Rules but these provisions were not related to misbranding and were regarding something else. The Supreme Court also referred to Rule 32 of the 1955 Rules observed that at the time of sample collection, the provisions of Rule 32 (c) and (f) were applicable, which requires that the name and complete address of the manufacturer or importer or vendor or packer, and the month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or prepacked, respectively. The Supreme Court stated that the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant with regards to non-applicability of the provision is not correct. There are concurrent findings of three Courts below and there is absolutely no question of us having any measure of doubt as to the findings, inasmuch as that the packets which were taken from shop or godown of the appellants were misbranded as defined under Section 2(ix)(k) of the Act, as they were not labelled in accordance with the requirements of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The Supreme Court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case converted the sentence of appellant no.2 from three months of simple imprisonment along with a fine for an amount of Rs.1,000/- to a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). Thus, the sentence of appellant no.1 which is for a fine for an amount of Rs. 2000/- is upheld. Accordingly, the court partly allowed the appeal. The counsel, Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, AOR appeared for the Petitioner(s). The counsel, Advocates Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Mr. Sohhom Sau represented the respondent.

Allahabad High Court: Allegations On Arbitrator’s Independence Under Item 24 Of 5th Schedule Of Arbitration Act Is Not Automatically A Ground For Disqualification

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Allahabad High Court in the case Gepdec Infratech Limited Thru Authorized Representative vs U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thru Superintending Engineer Lucknow observed and has held that the allegation under Item No. 24 of the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not automatically disqualify the arbitrator without disclosing any specific relationship between the arbitrator and the party. The Item No.24 of the Fifth Schedule states that doubts about an arbitrator’s independence or impartiality can arise if they currently serve or have served as an arbitrator in another arbitration on a related issue which involves one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties within the past three years. Facts of the Case: The Allahabad High Court, High Court in an order, suggested by the Former judge of this court, Justice V.C. Gupta as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Justice V.C. Gupta, in compliance with this order, conveyed his consent through a letter in accordance with the law. The Respondent in the case approached the High Court and contended that the proposed arbitrator, Justice V.C. Gupta, is currently engaged in arbitrating a case between the Respondent, U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., and SEW Infrastructure Ltd. thus, the said appointment was made by the High Court through an order in Civil Misc. Arbitration Application. Further, the respondent argued that as per Item 24 of the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Act, the appointment of Justice V.C. Gupta may lead to justifiable doubts about his independence or impartiality. The Appellant stated that the argument put forth by the Respondent was misconceived and untenable. It was also argued before the court that there was no evidence to suggest that the proposed arbitrator has any connection or affiliation with either of the parties involved in this case or the other arbitration. Observations Made By District Commission: The High Court in the case observed and has noted that Section 11 delineates the procedure for arbitrator appointments, particularly Sub-sections (6) and (8), underscoring the High Court’s role when parties fail to agree on an appointment. It has been emphasized under Sub-section (8) that the necessity for the arbitral institution, before appointing an arbitrator, to seek written disclosure from the prospective arbitrator in accordance with Section 12(1) and the court is mandated to consider qualifications agreed upon by the parties, the contents of the disclosure, and other factors ensuring the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator. The court stated that Section 12 of the Act requires the proposed arbitrator to disclose in writing any circumstances affecting their independence and impartiality as outlined in the Fifth Schedule. The Grounds for challenge under Section 12(3) include circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality, or the arbitrator lacking the agreed qualifications and the Fifth Schedule provides specific grounds for doubting arbitrators’ independence or impartiality. It has been stated under Item No.24 of the Fifth Schedule that doubts about an arbitrator’s independence or impartiality can arise if they currently serve or have served as an arbitrator in another arbitration on a related issue involving one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties within the past three years. The High Court also clarified that while this can be a ground for doubt, it is not conclusive and must be considered in the context of the specific circumstances. Therefore, the Items No.15 and 16 specify that an arbitrator can be considered related to the dispute if they provided legal advice or expert opinion to a party or an affiliate of one of the parties, or if they have previous involvement in the case. The High Court in the case considered the objection raised by the respondent based on Item No.24, held that it was misconceived and untenable. The court noted that the Respondent didn’t present any concrete circumstances that would suggest the proposed arbitrator’s involvement in another arbitration related to the respondent corporation or any affiliation. However, the objection was raised by the Respondent solely relied on Item No.24 of the Fifth Schedule, wherein it asserted the arbitrator’s disqualification without disclosing any specific relationship between the arbitrator and the respondent corporation, other than his role in a separate arbitration. The High Court in the case observed and has highlighted the need to harmoniously interpret Item No.16 along with Items 22 and 24, asserting that disqualifications are not automatic, and a showing of independence and impartiality in previous appointments can override potential disqualification. The court dismissed the Respondent’s objection, wherein stating that Item No.16, which pertains to previous involvement in an advisory or other capacity in the dispute, should not be read as including previous involvements as an arbitrator. The High Court appointed Justice V.C. Gupta as the arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The counsel, Advocate Vishnu Pratap Singh and Awaneesh Yadav appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, Advocate Puneet Chandra represented the respondent.

Supreme Court: No Evidence Could Be Led Beyond Pleadings

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court in the case Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai, Dead By Lrs. Versus. V. Kumar Vamanrao @Alok and Ors., observed that the evidence which was not a part of the pleadings could not be led in the trial. The bench comprising of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal in the case observed that there is no case in which there was any error in the pleadings and the parties knowing their case fully well had led evidence to enable the Court to deal with that evidence. In the case, the specific amendment in the pleadings was sought by the plaintiffs with reference to 1965 partition but the same was rejected and in such kind of situation, the evidence with reference to the partition of 1965 cannot be considered. The bench headed by Justice Rajesh Bindal while deciding a civil appeal preferred by the appellant or defendant against the decision of the High Court which had considered the evidence not pleaded in the pleadings by the plaintiff or respondent, moreover, the application moved plaintiff’s seeking amendment to the suit to add the evidence was also rejected by the trial court, and the same was not even challenged by the plaintiff or respondent. Therefore, the plaintiff or respondent challenged the sale of the suit property by the appellant or defendant no.7 to defendant no.9 which being on the note that the 1965 partition did not authorize the appellant to sell the suit property as he has no title over the suit property as per the 1965 partition. The Supreme Court in the case observed and has held that the High Court committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the partition which allegedly effected in the year 1965, as it is not even the pleaded case of the plaintiffs in the suit that there was any partition of the family properties in the year 1965. The court in the case observed that as is evident from the judgment of the High Court, much reliance was placed upon the oral partition effected between the parties in the year 1965. The said court is of the view that the High Court committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the partition allegedly effected in the year 1965, in terms of which Schedule ‘A’ properties were allotted exclusively to the share of defendant No. and the fact remains that it is not even the pleaded case of the plaintiffs in the suit that there was any partition of the family properties in the year 1965. Adding to it, the court stated that the plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint seeking to raise pleadings regarding 1965 partition. Thus, the trial court order dated October 11, 2006 rejected the application for amendment of the plaint. The aforesaid order was not challenged any further. The Supreme Court in the case observed and has recorded that the petition sought to be taken by the plaintiffs regarding the 1965 partition in the replication filed by them would not come to their rescue for the reason that the amendment application filed to raise that plea was specifically rejected. The court stated that the trial court had rightly ignored the plea taken in the replication by the plaintiffs regarding oral partition of 1965, as amendment sought to that effect had already been declined. What was not permitted to be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. The Supreme Court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has set aside the findings of the High Court and the sale executed by the appellant (since deceased) in favor of defendant No. 9 regarding Survey No. 106/2 is upheld. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal. The counsel, Advocates Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Mr. Varun Kanwal appeared for the Appellant(s). The counsel, Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Korada Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amith J, Adv. Mr. V. Chitambresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Amit, Adv. Mrs. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR represented the respondent.

Supreme Court Rebukes Registry For Not Drawing Divorce Decree For 5 Months; Remember We Exist For Litigants

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court in the case Vinit Vilas Vaidya vs. Manjiri Vinit Vaidya observed and has expressed its displeasure on its Registry for failing to comply with its specific direction to draw a decree of divorce. It is appropriate to mention that under this decree, more than ten proceedings were disposed of by mutual consent. The said direction was not complied with for more than five months. The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in the case observed and has expressed its dismay and has noted that ‘it shows the sorry state of affairs.’ The court noted that the decree is of divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and more than 10 proceedings were disposed of under the said decree. Thus, in the said case, the parties immediately require a certified copy of the decree. However, the decree was not drawn for a period of more than 5 months. Facts of the Case An appeal arising out of the matrimonial dispute was disposed of last September after recording the settlement terms. The Supreme Court had specifically asked the Registry to draw a decree. However, the same was not done for several months. Following this, the Registrar, Judicial Listing was called upon on February 12 to submit a report explaining the delay. Therefore, the report was submitted along with the explanation by various staff members. The Division bench perused the reports, when the matter was taken up on March 01. The court in the case observed that one of the excuses was that the original settlement terms were misplaced. Thus, the court strongly rebuked this and recorded that this court fails to understand how the Registry can refuse to draw the decree on the ground that the original settlement terms were not available. The court stated that where there is an order of the Court to draw a decree in a particular manner, it was the duty of the Registry to do so. Further, the court observed that report had termed the same as totally incorrect. Thus, the said report mentioned that the terms were, in fact, forwarded by the Court Master but were misplaced. It has also been state din the report that even the said excuse was totally incorrect, as the settlement terms were forwarded by the Court Master which were misplaced due to no fault of the Court Master of this Court. The court also pressed on the seriousness of this issue and observed that the Supreme Court while exercising its inherent power, put an end to matrimonial disputes. The court passed several orders and proceedings between the couple are quashed while a divorce decree is granted. However, unless the decree is made available, the Court’s order is of no use to the parties. It has also been stated by the said court that the staff members had expressed regret, the Court decided not to take action against them. The Registrar was directed to ensure no delay in drawing the decrees. Adding to it, the court stated that the Handbook of Practice and Procedure provides for drawing a decree within one week and no further directions are required. The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has noted that the decree in the present case has now been drawn. In view of this, the Registry was asked to provide a certified copy of the decree to the parties as soon as possible.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Halts Illegal Constructions On Bheemunipatnam Beach

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case observed and has issued an order halting illegal constructions near Bheemunipatnam beach at Vizag. The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao in the case was dealing with the Public Interest Litigation, PIL moved wherein it highlighted alleged inaction of local authorities in stopping the construction of permanent structures within a sensitive Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) area. The bench in the case observed and has stated that this court have also seen photographs which are placed on the file which does show heavy machinery being utilized and some construction having already taken place in close proximity to the sea. Thus, this apparently is in violation of the coastal zone regulations. The court while recognising the seriousness of the situation directed the relevant authorities to: Immediately halt all construction activity: This includes seizing any machinery on site to prevent further progress. File a detailed response: The authorities must outline their plan to address the violations and take action against those responsible. The counsel, K.S. Murthy, Senior Counsel a/w Ponnada Sree Vyas appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, C. Sumon, learned Government Pleader, V. Surya Kiran Kumar, K. Madhava Reddy, and G.P for Revenue represented the respondent.

Delhi High Court Referred Matter to arbitration: Negotiation Requires Active Communication Between Parties, Non-Responsive Party Not Actively Participating

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Delhi High Court bench headed by single judge in the case M/S. Breakthrough Concepts Vs M/S. Atrix Group Of Restaurants and Anr. observed and has held that ‘negotiation’ necessitates communication between the involved parties, asserting that a party failing to respond to legal notices from another cannot be considered actively participating in the negotiation process. Facts of the Case: In the case, the franchise agreement forged on May 26, 2017 between M/s Kaur Cookies Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No.1, facilitated by Respondent No. 2. Consequently, M/s Kaur Cookies Pvt. Ltd. underwent a transfer to the Petitioner, through a deed of assignment. The petitioner in the plea contended that the Respondents approached them for a modification of the royalty and management fee, a request the Petitioner accommodated amidst the challenges posed by the COVID-19 Pandemic, wherein it reduced the fees to Rs.1 lakh per month. Therefore, the Respondents allegedly defaulted on timely payments, accumulating a due of Rs.11,43,378.33 by February 2021. The petitioner claimed to have reminded and requested Respondent No. 1 to settle their outstanding liability, with no positive response. Further, the petitioner asserted that four legal notices, were subsequently dispatched in an attempt to prompt compliance. Despite these efforts, the Respondents allegedly remained non-responsive. Thus, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, High Court and has filed an application as stated under Section 11 (5) and section (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitration Act, wherein seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to address the dispute s between the parties. Observations Made By High Court: The High Court in the case observed and has held that the Petitioner diligently pursued resolution by consistently dispatching demand notices to the Respondents, all of which went unanswered. The court held that this showed the Petitioner’s earnest attempt to seek a resolution before resorting to court intervention. The High Court while interpreting the term negotiation held that it is imperative to understand it in a pragmatic context. Thus, the Negotiation necessitates communication between the involved parties, and for it to be effective, it must be a reciprocal exchange. On the other hand, the respondent failed to actively participate in the negotiation process, as evidenced by their lack of response. The High Court while acknowledging its limited jurisdiction under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration Act, emphasized that its role is confined to determining the existence of an arbitration agreement. The court in the case held that where an agreement between the parties and an arbitrable dispute are admitted, the court should deem it appropriate to refer the matter to arbitration. The High Court in the case observed and has referred the disputes to an arbitral tribunal. Therefore, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre was urged to appoint an Arbitrator to preside over and adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The counsel, Advocates Mr. Ansh Singh Luthra, Mr. Harmanpreet Singh Kohli, Ms. Nikhar Luthra and Mr. Madhav Kumar appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Prakash Pathak represented the respondent.

SC Agreed To Consider Early Listing Of Manish Sisodia’s Curative Petitions For Bail In Delhi Liquor Policy Scam

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court in the case observed and has agreed to consider the urgent listing of the curative petition moved by Aam Aadmi Party, AAP leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, Manish Sisodia wherein seeking bail in the Delhi liquor policy scam case. The counsel, Senior Advocate Mr AM Singhvi, appearing for the former Deputy CM, submitted before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud that the Trial Court has deferred the hearing of Sisodia’s fresh bail application wherein its is stated that the curative petition is pending before the Supreme Court. The bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud in the case observed and has agreed to consider the matter and asked the petitioner to send an email request. The said matter was previously mentioned by Singhvi on February 05, 2024 as well. Therefore, the curative petition moved seeks bail for Sisodia in connection with the Delhi liquor policy scam, where he faces charges registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement, ED. The bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti in the case observed and has dismissed the petition moved by Manish Sisodia’s seeking bail in the CBI and ED cases related to the Delhi liquor policy scam. The bench in the case observed and has denied the bail wherein stating that Sisodia will be entitled to apply for fresh bail if the trial does not progress in three months. Accordingly, the same bench dismissed the review petition on December 13.

Bombay High Court: acquitted GN Saibaba And 5 Others In Alleged Maoist Links Case

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Bombay High Court Nagpur bench in the case observed and has set aside the conviction of former Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba and five others in an alleged Maoist-links case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, UAPA. The Division bench comprising of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes pronounced the judgment. In the present case, Wheelchair-bound GN Saibaba and his co-accused have been under custody since their arrest in 2014 on charges of having links with Maoist organizations and waging war against India. It has been contended by the prosecution during the trial at the Sessions Court in Gadchiroli that the accused were working for the banned CPI (Maoist) group through front organizations such as RDF. The prosecution in the case relied on evidence which includes seized pamphlets and electronic material deemed as anti-national, allegedly seized at the behest of GN Saibaba in Gadchiroli. Further, it was alleged that Saibaba handed over a 16GB memory card intended for Naxalites sheltering in the Abuzmad forest area. Therefore, the said trial led to their conviction in March 2017 under section 13, section 18, section 20, section 38 and section 39 of the UAPA and section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Another bench of Bombay High Court in the acse observed and has set aside the conviction based on procedural grounds, with the bench of Justice Rohit Deo and Justice Anil Pansare holding the trial void due to the absence of a valid sanction under section 45(1) of the UAPA. The said court had underscored the importance of procedural compliance in cases involving terrorism and emphasized that departures from due process could foster an environment conducive to terrorism. The Supreme Court in the special Saturday sitting, which attracted controversy observed and has stayed the order of High Court, the very next day after an urgent mentioning by the Maharashtra Government. The Supreme Court overturned this decision in the petition filed by the Maharashtra government challenging the acquittal and directed the Bombay High Court to reevaluate the case afresh. The Supreme Court in the case observed and has directed that the Bombay High Court must consider all aspects of the case, including the question of sanction. Therefore, the said bench stressed that the high court should proceed without prejudice and solely on the merits of the case, without being influenced by its earlier order. The court stated that it would be open for the State to contend that once an accused is convicted after the conclusion of a trial, the validity of the sanction or he lack thereof would become insignificant. The Supreme Court in the case also instructed that the case be assigned to a different bench to maintain propriety and avoid any apprehensions. The Supreme Court while considering the facts and circumstances also clarified that it had not made any determination on the merits of the case and emphasized the need for a thorough review by the high court.

Supreme Court Quashed Money laundering Case Against Karnataka Dy CM DK Shivakumar And Aide

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court in the case Anjaneya Hanumanthaiah v. Principal Director of Income Tax and Ors and has allowed the appeals filed by Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar and his aide challenging the criminal proceedings in a 2018 money laundering case. The bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan in the case observed and has allowed the petition filed by the Congress leader and his aide Anjaneya Hanumanthaiah against a 2019 Karnataka High Court verdict wherein upholding the summonses issued to them by the Enforcement Directorate. Thus, the primary reason cited by the single-judge bench of the high court was that Section 120B of the Indian Penal constituted a stand-alone offence adequate to invoke the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The court held that same as ‘unsustainable’ by the apex court in view of its recent Pavana Dibbur judgment. Therefore, the case stems from allegations of money laundering against Shivakumar and four others, following income tax raids in 2017 where unaccounted cash worth over Rs seven crore was reportedly seized. The Enforcement Directorate, ED in the case issued summonses to them in connection with the raids, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Karnataka High Court in August 2019 dismissed the petition by Shivakumar and others, upholding the central agency’s summonses. The court in the case observed and has issued notice in a set of pleas against the said order, thus, the Supreme Court had protected the appellants from coercive action in October of the same year. The High Court in the case had addressed a crucial question regarding Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and its applicability as a standalone and distinct offence for invoking provisions of the PMLA. The court held that Section 120B can indeed be a predicate, standalone offence on the strength of which the anti-money laundering statute can be invoked. The Supreme Court in its landmark judgement in the case Pavana Dibbur, held that Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code becomes a scheduled offence only when the conspiracy is directed towards committing an offence that is otherwise scheduled. the bench comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal clarified that the legislative intent behind the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was not to make every offence not included in the schedule a scheduled offence by applying Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, IPC. The Supreme Court in the case observed and has allowed the appeals of DK Shivakumar and his aides, wherein the court aside the judgement of Karnataka High Court’s and quashed the proceedings initiated under the PMLA against them. The court held that in view of the Pavana Dibbur decision, the reasons assigned by high court in impugned judgment cannot sustain. Thus, the court allowed the appeals and has set aside the impugned judgment, the proceedings initiated against the appellants under the PMLA are hereby quashed. The court noted that the review petition has been filed by the ED against the Pavana Dibbur judgment. The bench headed by Justice Kant-led bench in the case observed and has clarified that if the review petition is accepted, the view taken by the high court in the impugned judgment would stand affirmed, allowing the ED to seek a review or recall of this latest order if necessary.

Calcutta High Court orders Bengal Government to hand over Sheikh Shahjahan to CBI

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Calcutta High Court granted custody of Sheikh Shahjahan, a former Trinamool leader facing allegations of extortion, land encroachment, and sexual assault in Bengal's Sandeshkhali, to the CBI on Tuesday. The Bengal Police have been instructed to hand over Shahjahan and all relevant case materials by 4:30 pm. The Bengal government swiftly contested the decision in the Supreme Court, but its request for an immediate hearing was denied. The Supreme Court stated it would follow standard procedures and directed senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi to bring up the plea before its Registrar-General. Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam, leading a High Court bench, revoked a previous order establishing a special investigative team comprising CBI and state police officials, transferring the case to the central agency. Both the Enforcement Directorate and the state separately challenged this decision; the ED advocated for the case to be solely handled by the CBI, while the state preferred the police to conduct the investigation. Sheikh Shahjahan had been evading authorities since January 5 when a group of Enforcement Directorate officials was assaulted by his supporters while en route to conduct raids. His disappearance and the assault triggered a significant political controversy, with the BJP accusing the ruling Trinamool party, led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, of shielding him. After 55 days on the run, Shahjahan was apprehended by a special police team and expelled from the Trinamool for six years. His arrest followed three days after the High Court issued an order for his apprehension.

Relief for Congress leader DK Shivakumar, as SC dismisses money laundering case against him

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court's decision today brought significant relief to Karnataka's Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar as it dismissed a 2018 money laundering case against the Congress leader. Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials arrested the Congress leader in September 2019 in connection with this case, but the Delhi High Court granted him bail the following month. Mr. Shivakumar accused the BJP of political vendetta at the time and expressed his trust in the judiciary. The ED's investigation stemmed from Income Tax department raids on properties associated with the Congress leader and his associates in 2017, during which cash totaling nearly ₹300 crore was reportedly seized. Mr. Shivakumar countered by alleging that the cash was linked to the BJP. The court said, "Question of whether 120B IPC can constitute a predicate standalone offence to enable ED to invoke PMLA has already been decided by the Supreme Court.” In November of the preceding year, the apex court decided that criminal conspiracy, as outlined in Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, would be considered a scheduled offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act only if the purported conspiracy aims to commit an offense listed in the Act's Schedule. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has requested a reconsideration of this decision. Today, the court stated that the agency has the option to revisit today's order if the ED's request for review is granted. In 2019, Mr. Shivakumar sought to have the summonses issued by the ED dismissed, first at the Karnataka High Court, and then at the Supreme Court after finding no relief there.

Supreme Court Denied Specific Performance To Plaintiff Who Made False Statements, Calls Relief Discretionary Ad Equitable

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court in the case Major Gen. Darshan Singh (D) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (D) by Lrs. Was hearing the petition moved by plaintiff for specific performance on account of false or incorrect statements made by him. The court in the case held that grant of a decree for specific performance as stated under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is discretionary and equitable. The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol in the case observed that the exercise of discretion depends on several factors and one of the factors is the conduct of the plaintiff. Thus, the reason is that relief of a decree of specific performance is an equitable relief and the person who seeks equity must do equity. The present case relates to sale-purchase of a property that was agreed to be sold by the defendant i.e., the respondent No.1 to the plaintiff i..e, the appellants. Therefore, the parties to the dispute agreed upon consideration for an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- and earnest money @ Rs.30,000 was being paid by the plaintiffs to defendant. It has been stated that as per the agreement between the parties, if the defendant failed to honor the agreement, he would refund the sum for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- along with damages of Rs.10,000/- without any interest. As per the plaintiff, this agreement was novated and consideration amount reduced to Rs.2,90,000/-. The draft sale deed was executed and the plaintiffs put in possession. Further, the court observed that the defendant changed his mind and did not appear for registration of the sale deed. Thus, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance, praying in the alternative for damages of Rs.40,000/- in the matter. On the other hand, the department stated that the suit property was a Hindu Undivided Family, HUF property. thus, he denied the plaintiffs’ claim of possession having been given, saying that the members of the Hindu Undivided Family, HUF were in joint possession of the property. Therefore, the Trial Court, Appellate Court and High Court denied relief of specific performance, but allowed and maintained a decree of damages to the tune for an amount of Rs.40,000/- in favor of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff approached the Supreme Court, against the High Court judgment. The Supreme Court stated that the plaintiffs made incorrect or false statements, including on the matter of being put in possession of the property, and refused specific performance. The court while considering the plaintiffs’ conduct of making false and or incorrect statements in the plaint, which were very material, the said court hold that the plaintiffs are disentitled to relief of specific performance. Further, the court observed that the plaintiffs continued to prosecute the suit in respect of the entire property, despite knowing and admitting that it was an HUF property, members of which were not party to the suit. The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has directed that sum of Rs.40,000/- shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of passing of the decree by the Trial Court till realization. Accordingly, the court partly allowed the appeal.

Armed Forces Tribunal Launched Official Website For Chandigarh Bench

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Armed Forces Tribunal, AFT principal bench chairperson, Justice Rajendra Menon, who being the former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi on March 01, 2024. The website launched of Armed Forces Tribunal AFT, Chandigarh will be a repository of all data which relates to cases instituted, pending and disposed of by the Tribunal. Which clicking on the click of a button, the case-related information viz. daily cause list, daily orders, judgments as well as other information related to latest notifications, vacancies may now be accessed. Adding to it, it has been stated that the launch of website will facilitate better and efficient administration of judicial system and it will benefit all litigants, lawyers and other stake holders who can have access to the status of their cases from anywhere in India. It was also informed that since the inception of Armed Forces Tribunal, AFT, Regional Bench, Chandigarh out of a total number of 89,000 cases filed till March 01, 2024 and more than 78000 cases have already been disposed of. The event was attended by Justice Shekher Dhawan, Judicial Member & Head of Department, Justice Sudhir Mittal, Lt.Gen. Ranbir Singh, Administrative Member, Air Marshal Manvendra Singh, Administrative Member, Registry, Members of the Bar, Officers from the JAG Branch of the Armed Forces and other dignitaries. Justice Virender Singh, the former Chief Justice, of Jharkhand High Court and the former Chairperson, of Armed Forces Tribunal and R.S.Panghal, President, of AFT Chandigarh Bar Association also attended the event for the launch of website.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside The Decisions Of Bank To Declare Ratul Puri As Wilful Defaulter Under RBI Master Circular On Wilful Defaulters, 2015

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Delhi High Court in the case Ratul Puri v. Bank Of Baroda and Other Connected Matters observed and has quashed the decision of Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank wherein it declared the businessman Ratul Puri as a ‘wilful defaulter’ under the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters, 2015, which is issued by the Reserve Bank of India, RBI. The bench headed by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav in the case observed and has set aside the order passed by Bank of Baroda’s Review Committee last year on March 23 that confirmed the order passed by its Identification Committee which declared Ratul Puri as a Wilful Defaulter. In the present case, Puri is the Chairman of Hindustan Power Projects Private Limited and the bank banks declared him as a wilful defaulter with respect to his association in another company, Moser Baer Solar Limited, as a result of which Puri was deprived from availing credit facilities for his prospective business enterprises. The court in the case observed and has set aside the similar order passed Punjab National Bank’s Review Committee on April 20 last year, wherein the bank declared the Puri as well as his mother, Nita Puri as a wilful defaulter. It has been stated that the reasons which are assigned in the impugned orders were unsustainable. Therefore, the court allowed the petition moved by the Puris. The court in the case held that identification of a wilful defaulter has to be made while keeping in view the track record of the borrower and not on the basis of isolated transactions or incidents. The court stated that it is required to be ensured that solitary or isolated instances are not made the basis for imposing the penal action under the Master Circular. Thus, the said requirement is cast in the Master Circular with an object to punish those borrowers who have not acted bonafidely which being in the interest of the business enterprise but made a concerted effort to divert borrowed funds. Adding to it, the court stated that the banks in question were obligated to reflect upon the entire track record of Moser Baer Solar Limited, and then the court concluded that whether there existed events of Wilful Default and not on the basis of isolated transactions or incidents. The bench of Justice Kaurav stated that it is incumbent upon bank, who are dealing with public funds and discharging a public duty in order to make appropriate enquiries as to whether a borrower is in genuine financial difficulty or whether there exist events of fraud and malfeasance. Further, the court stated that if the lender banks find fraud or malfeasance, the CDR-EG must either refuse CDR completely or impose such additional onerous conditions as it has been provided in the CDR Scheme itself. The counsel, Advocates Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Mr. Karan Batura, Mr. Ekansh Mishra and Mr. Jayant Chawla appeared for the Petitioners. The counsel, Advocates Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Kush Sharma, Standing Counsel and Mr. Nishchaya Nigam, Advocate (for Bank of Baroda); Mr. Sanjay Bajaj alongwith Mr. Shivam Takkar and Mr. Sarthak Sehgal represented the Punjab National Bank.

Kerala High Court Provides Relief To Homeo Doctor: Accused Should Be Protected From Vexatious Criminal Proceedings | Section 482 CrPC

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Kerala High Court in the case Dr. Navaneeth K. Unni v State Represented by Public Prosecutor observed and has quashed the proceedings which are pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate against a Homeo Doctor for allegedly stocking and selling Homeo medicines without authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The court in the case exercised its inherent powers as stated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC to quash the complaint and proceedings since no offence was made out. The bench headed by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in the case observed and has stated that the inherent powers as stated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC have to be used for quashing the complaint to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The court in the case observed and has considered the question whether the power under Section 482 should be exercised or not, the Court must always be guided by the principles laid down in the provision itself i.e, to prevent the abuse of process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, the said court is satisfied that both those parameters are satisfied and the said complaint is required to be quashed to prevent the abuse of process of Court and also to secure the ends of justice. The court referred to the case Priyanka Mishra v. State of Kerala, wherein the court held that ‘accused should be protected against vexations and unwanted criminal prosecution and from unnecessarily being put through the rigours of an eventual trial.’ The court also referred to the decision in the case Religare Finvest Ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi, to state that Courts should take recourse to their power to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases for meeting the ends of justice. The Kerala High Court in the case observed and has quashed proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate against a Homeo Doctor for allegedly stocking and selling Homeo medicines without authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Therefore, the said court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC to quash the complaint and proceedings since no offence was made out. In the present case, the private complaint was filed against the petitioner wherein it alleged that he was a fraud doctor for stocking and selling Homeo medicines in the Homeo clinic without a licence. The Drug Inspector conducted an enquiry in the clinic and found that the petitioner was registered as a medical practitioner only from June 10, 2013. However, the court found that it was an admitted fact that the father of the petitioner was also a registered medical practitioner and was practising as early as 1998. Thus, it has been stated that the purchase of homeo medicines could not be termed as illegal since they were procured for the clinic conducted by the petitioner’s father who has a valid medical licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for purchasing, stocking and selling such medicines. The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the enquiry was conducted on July 15, 2013, when the petitioner had a valid licence to practise as a medical practitioner. Therefore, the Court that no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. Thus, the court stated that even if the entire prosecution allegations were correct, it would still not make out an offence against the petitioner. Further, the court quashed proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, the court allowed the petition. The counsel, Advocate Reena Abraham appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, Additional Director of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose, Public Prosecutor T R Ranjith, Advocate C P Jyothy represented the respondent.

Delhi High Court Dismissed Section 34 Petition Of Arbitration and Conciliation Act; Arbitration Need Not To Be Technical In Nature, Within Power To Decide Matter On Basis Of Material On Record

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Delhi High Court in the case Govt. Of NCT of Delhi vs M/s R.S Sharma Contractors Pvt. Ltd observed and has held that the arbitral proceedings initiated before the arbitrator are not required to be technical in nature and the arbitrator is within its power to decide the same which being on the basis of material on record. The single bench headed by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma in the case observed and has held that the arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality and quantity of evidence, and the role of the court’s is not to reassess the material or correct the arbitrator’s errors as stated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Facts of the Case: The present matter pertains to a dispute originated from a contract entered between the petitioner, i.e., Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi and the respondent, i.e., M/s R.S Sharma Contractors Pvt. Ltd for the construction of a four-lane bridge and a double-lane bridge. Thus, the stipulated completion date was February 15, 2018 and the same was delayed until December 24, 2019, which cause a delay of 677 days. Therefore, the respondent invoked the Arbitrator clause, which leads to the appointment of Mr/ Dinesh Kumar as the Sole Arbitrator. Thus, the arbitral award favored the Respondent, wherein it directed the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,73,91,632/- along with pendent-lite and future interest. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a petition as stated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitration Act. The petitioner while challenging the award under section 34 contended that the award must be set aside as it follows an unjust procedure, violating Section 34(b)(ii) (against public policy) and Section 34(2A)., patent illegality of the Arbitration Act, and exceeded the agreed terms of the contract. As per the petitioner, the impugned award contradicted the contract terms, specifically with regards to the final bill’s submission and acceptance, constituting a full and final settlement. Further, it has been argued by the petitioner in the plea that the arbitrator, without evidence, deemed the Respondent’s actions as economic duress. It has also been contended by the petitioner that the claim of the respondent’s lacked proper documentary evidence and has contradicted the Agreement terms. Observations Made by High Court: The High Court in the case observed and has held that the legislative mandate is to ensure an expeditious and binding dispute resolution process with minimal court intervention. Thus, the proceedings which are initiated under Section 34 of the A&C Act are summary, reflecting the legislative intent for minimal interference and prompt dispute resolution. It has also been clarified that the scope of inquiry under Section 34 is confined to assessing whether the grounds specified in Section 34(2), 13(5), or 16(6) of the A&C Act justify setting aside the award. The court in the case reiterated that the arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality and quantity of evidence, and the court’s role is not to reassess the material or correct the arbitrator’s errors. The High Court in the case observed and has held that court cannot act as an appellate authority or subject the award to merit review. Further, the court held that interference is warranted only if findings are totally perverse, contrary to contract terms, violate natural justice, conflict with public policy, or the same fall under specified grounds in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that the arbitrator meticulously examined all clauses and provided the findings in para 7.4, addressing each issue separately. Thus, the court held that the proceedings before the arbitrator do not necessarily need to be technical in nature. Further, the court stated that the arbitrator has the authority to make decisions based on the available material in the record. The court also held that there was no discernible illegality or violation in the proceedings conducted by the arbitral tribunal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition under section 34 of the A&C Act. The counsel, Advocates Mr. Bharat Singh Sisodia and Mr. Z.A. Khan. Appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, Advocates Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vipin Prabhat. represented the respondent.

Calcutta High Court: Addressing Unknown Lady As ‘Darling’ Is Patently Offensive, Amounts To Using Sexually Coloured Remark

April 28, 2025, 2:20 pm

The Calcutta High Court in the case Janak Ram v State observed and has held that referring to an unknown lady as ‘darling’ would be a criminal offence as stated under Section 354A and Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC. The single bench headed by Justice Jay Sengupta in the case observed and has upheld the conviction of the accused who had referred to a lady constable as ‘darling’ in an inebriated condition The court stated while addressing an unknown lady, whether a police constable or not, on the street by a man, drunken or nor, with the word “darling” is patently offensive and the word used essentially a sexually coloured remark. Thus, using such expression to an unacquainted lady cannot but be an act intended to insult the modesty of the addressee. The court stated that as of now, the prevailing standards in our society are not such that a man on the street can gleefully be permitted to use such expression in respect of unsuspecting, unacquainted women. Therefore, the accused in the said case had allegedly used ‘evidently reprehensible sexist expression’ towards the lady constable in an inebriated state by saying ‘Kya darling challan karne aai hay kya?’ In the present case, the case was initiated under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, IPC, and Section 509 IPC for using a sexually coloured remark and outraging the modesty of a woman. The Trial Court in the case had found the accused guilty and ordered them to undergo three months imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 500 each. It has been argued by the prosecution that a police team had approached the concerned area for patrolling during the ethe eve of Durga Puja, upon receiving information that a person was creating a nuisance. Therefore, the police took him to the police station, while some officers including the victim remained in the area. It was also stated before the court that when the team was standing near a shop in the area, the accused asked the complainant-victim the sexually coloured question. Further, it was argued that accused were arrested, and the trial began, ending in conviction and sentencing for the accused. The counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused submitted before the court that time of the occurrence was kept blank and that an independent witness from the police party had deposed that the accused only jokingly made the remark, thereby excluding the application of Section 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC. It was also argued before the court that there was a clash of ego between the parties, and there was a doubt whether such an incident had occurred at all. The counsel submitted before the court that the area was dark and no independent witness was examined, leading to the trial court taking an exceedingly rigid stand. Further, it was submitted that the word used was not sexually coloured or lewd, but that it was a colloquial word commonly used in conversation as well as TV and films, not necessarily containing a sexual connotation. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State argued before the court that the impugned orders of conviction were well reasoned and that there was no justification for the appellant to use such remarks. The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed that since the appellant had stopped after making the remark, and did not aggravate the situation, thus, the sentence imposed by the trial court could be relooked. Accordingly, the court imposed the one-month sentence.