This page is updated from Monday to Saturday, every day around 6 to 9 PM.

1. Supreme Court says a woman’s lack of marital status cannot deny her the choice to abort a pregnancy at any time up to 24 weeks. Justice D Y Chandrachud of India’s Supreme Court said, “Even an unmarried woman can undergo abortion up to 24 weeks on par with married women”. Full Story

2. In the case of Zee Media Corporation Limited & Anr vs Union of India & Anr, Zee Media has approached the Delhi High Court challenging an order of the Union Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry directing the broadcaster to remove ten of its TV channels from the Ku band on the GSAT-15 satellite. Full Story

3. The Kerala High Court, in the case of Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry vs State of Kerala, directed the Popular Front of India (PFI) to provisionally deposit ₹5.20 crores towards the damages estimated by the State Government as well as the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) as compensation for the destruction of property in the State due to the flash hartal called by the banned organisation on September 23. Full Story

4. In the case of Gautam Navlakha vs National Investigation Agency, the Supreme Court observed that the jails in India are overcrowded, and sodomy and forced homosexuality are rampant. Full Story

1. In the case of Diwan Singh vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors, the Delhi High Court recently issued a notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe to ascertain the number and kinds of tree saplings planted in Delhi in the last five years. Full Story

2. The Bombay Court, while hearing the case of Rabia Khan vs Union of India, dismissed a petition filed by the mother of late Bollywood actress Jiah Khan, seeking a directive to the US-based Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to probe the death of her daughter. Full Story

3. In the case of Ramalingam vs The Director General of Police and Ors, the Madras High Court directed the parents of the Kallakurichi schoolgirl, who had died by suicide, to hand over the mobile phone of the deceased girl to the Tamil Nadu Crime Investigation Department (CB-CID) which is probing the matter. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court, in the case of CBI vs Sanjay Gupta and Ors, granted statutory bail to former Chief Executive Officer of National Stock Exchange (NSE), Chitra Ramkrishna, and former Group Operating Officer of NSE, Anand Subramanian in a case registered against them by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the NSE co-location scam. Full Story

1. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) told the Karnataka High Court that no coercive action would be taken against online gaming intermediary Gameskraft until the next date of hearing, pursuant to the show-cause notice issued to the company after a ₹21,000 crore tax demand was made by the authorities. Full Story

2. In the case of Suresh Kashinath Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court recently clarified that under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, half of the life imprisonment would mean imprisonment for 10 years. Full Story

3. In the case of Aryamol vs Union of India & Ors, the Kerala High Court permitted a woman claiming to be separated from her allegedly abusive husband to terminate her 21-week-old pregnancy. Full Story

4. The Kerala High Court, in the case of Suo Moto vs State of Kerala and Another, initiated a suo motu case to include Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia in the group of rare diseases and to grant financial aid and support to the patients. Full Story

1. In the case of Aram Seyya Virumbu Trust vs UOI, the Madras High Court on Thursday referred to a larger bench, a plea filed by DMK Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), Dr Ezhilan Naganathan, which sought to restore education back from the Concurrent List to the State List. Full Story

2. In the case of S Krishnakumar vs State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court stayed the order transferring Kozhikode Principal District and Sessions Judge S Krishnakumar to a Labor Court in Kollam. His transfer had come on the heels of widespread criticism of an order he delivered in early August in which it was held that sexual harassment case would not prima facie stand if the victim was wearing a “sexually provocative dress”. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court, in the case of Khushboo Saifi vs Union of India, sought the Central government’s response in an appeal against the split verdict of the Delhi High Court in the marital rape case on the validity of Exception 2 to section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Full Story

4. In the case of Priyanka Shrimali vs State of Rajasthan, a full bench of the Rajasthan High Court has held that going forward, married daughters will be able to apply for government jobs on compassionate grounds, in parity with a married son or an unmarried daughter. Full Story

1. In the case of Abbas Sk @ Abbas Hossain, the Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence imposed on a tutor convicted of raping a minor girl. The court is of the view that the present case has shattered the confidence of society in the relationship of a teacher and a student. Full Story

2. While quashing a 24-year-old criminal case against certain individuals, the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Dr Meraj Ali & Anr vs State of UP, observed that a speedy trial is a right not only of the complainant but also of the accused persons. Full Story

3. In the case of Rajesh Giri vs Subhash Mittal and Ors, the Delhi High Court has held that a private temple may be open to the public on certain festivals, but that would not convert it into a public temple, and a worshipper is not empowered to maintain a suit for titular rights over it. Full Story

4. In the case of RS Bhargava vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court on Friday directed a private school to allow an unvaccinated teacher to resume duties after a member board constituted by AIIMS, New Delhi said that he was at a higher risk of developing an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. Full Story

1. In the case of Court on its own motion vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court has directed its Medical Committee and the Delhi Government to ensure that Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) service is installed on the High Court premises before December 6. Full Story

2. The Kerala High Court, in the case of xxxxx vs State of Kerala & Ors, observed that media debates on legal proceedings are held without properly understanding the circumstances under which the courts take decisions and ignorance of legal provisions and principles applied by the courts. Full Story

3. In the case of Ashwini Upadhyay vs UOI, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking prohibition/regulation on the production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs in the national capital. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court, in the case of BS Yediyurappa vs TJ Abraham and Ors, stayed proceedings before a lower court against former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa in connection with a bribery case. Full Story

1. In the case of S Shanmugasundaram vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others, the Madras High Court on Thursday directed the Tamil Nadu government and the state police to grant permission to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to conduct a state-wide musical procession and a public meeting on October 2. Full Story

2. In the case of Goa Foundation vs National Green Tribunal & Ors, a full bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that the constitution of a special bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) at Delhi is illegal. Full Story

3. In the case of Fathima Bushra vs State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in a batch of appeals challenging a Karnataka High Court verdict that upheld a government order (GO) of the state of Karnataka, effectively empowering the government colleges in the state to ban the wearing of Hijab by Muslim girl students in the college campus. Full Story

4. The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of State of UP vs Mukhtar Ansari, sentenced Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Mukhtar Ansari to seven years imprisonment for intimidating a jailer by abusing, pointing a pistol at him, and threatening to kill him in 2003. Full Story

1. In the case of Ashwini Upadhyay vs Union of India and Ors, the Supreme Court took a very dim view of the functioning of mainstream television news channels in the country, stating that they often give space for hate speech and then escape without any sanctions. Full Story

2. In the case of Fathima Bushra vs State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court said that allowing Muslim girl students to wear the Hijab in schools and colleges could be seen as an opportunity to expose other students to diversity and become culturally sensitive. Full Story

3. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh vs President, SGPC, recently upheld the termination of service of a man employed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), who was found smoking in a public place. Full Story

4. The Central Government, in the case of Senoara Begum & Ors vs Union of India & Anr, has told the Delhi High Court that as per inputs from security agencies and other authentic material, Rohingya refugees living in India have links with Pakistan-based terror outfits and their large influx poses serious security concerns. Full Story

1. In the case of Zee Media Corporation Ltd vs Rajat Sharma & Anr, journalist Rajat Sharma and his news channel India TV have given an undertaking before the Delhi High Court that they will not broadcast the episodes of the popular show ‘Aap Ki Adalat’ shot between 1992 to 1997 since they were produced by Zee. Full Story

2. The Kerala High Court in the case of Marakkar & Ors. vs State of Kerala & Ors upheld the decision of a lower court to cancel the bail granted to eleven accused persons who had allegedly beaten to death a tribal youth, Madhu, in 2018. Full Story

3. The Bombay High Court asked Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to explain under what provisions they were collecting fines from citizens for not wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar added that if the authority is able to show that the decisions were taken to achieve the greater good, then the Court will not intervene. Full Story

4. In the case of Sk Saidullah vs Registrar General, Calcutta High Court, the Calcutta High Court on Monday refused to restrain a local news channel, ABP Ananda, from broadcasting the interview of a sitting judge of the High Court. Full Story

1. The Madras High Court observed that couples who tie the marital knot must remember that marriage is not merely for carnal pleasure, but its main purpose is to procreate. Full Story

2. In the case of Vishwanath Pradhan vs State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court recently directed the state police to investigate the issue of petitions being filed by persons committing fraud by impersonating themselves as advocates. Full Story

3. In the case of Mahboob Ali vs State of Uttarakhand, the Uttarakhand High Court recently took a poor view of the state government’s “chalta hai” attitude in dealing with a bail case while observing that the state was one of the biggest hurdles in the expeditious disposal of bail matters. Full Story

4. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of Bunty vs State of Punjab, recently stayed the payment of salaries to a public prosecutor and an investigating officer (IO) for failing to effectively conduct the trial in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Full Story

1. Eight cheetahs from Namibia arrived in Gwalior on Saturday, marking the beginning of the translocation of cheetahs into India from Namibia, which was allowed by the Supreme Court more than two years ago. Full Story

2. In the case of All India Association of Jurists vs Uttarakhand High Court & Ors, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has opposed a plea before the Supreme Court that sought to declare virtual hearing as a fundamental right. Full Story

3. In the case of New Millennium Education Society vs GGSIPU, the Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to constitute a special team of experts to conduct surprise visits to colleges that lack infrastructure and facilities for teaching law. Full Story

4. In the case of Meera Shukla vs Municipal Corporation, Gorakhpur, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹120 crores as environmental compensation for improper solid waste management and discharge of sewage into rivers in Gorakhpur District. Full Story

1. In the case of Aram Seyya Virumbu Trust vs UOI, the Madras High Court on Thursday referred to a larger bench a plea filed by DMK Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), Dr Ezhilan Naganathan, which sought to restore education back from the Concurrent List to the State List. Full Story

2. In the case of S Krishnakumar vs State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court stayed the order transferring Kozhikode Principal District and Sessions Judge S Krishnakumar to a Labor Court in Kollam. His transfer had come on the heels of widespread criticism of an order he delivered in early August in which it was held that sexual harassment case would not prima facie stand if the victim was wearing a “sexually provocative dress”. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in the case of Khushboo Saifi vs Union of India, sought the Central government’s response in an appeal against the split verdict of the Delhi High Court in the marital rape case on the validity of Exception 2 to section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Full Story

4. In the case of Priyanka Shrimali vs State of Rajasthan, a full bench of the Rajasthan High Court has held that going forward, married daughters will be able to apply for government jobs on compassionate grounds, in parity with a married son or an unmarried daughter. Full Story

1. In the case of Fathima Bushra vs State of Karnataka, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves on Thursday argued before the Supreme Court that the judgment of the Karnataka High Court effectively upholding the ban on wearing Hijab (headscarves) in government schools and colleges was hurtful and deeply offensive to those who follow Islam. Full Story

2. In the case of B.Ramkumar Adityan vs District Collector, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu police authorities to prohibit obscene and vulgar song and dance performances at the upcoming Dasara (Dussehra) festival in the state. Full Story

3. In the case of Satyendar Jain vs ED, the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday informed the court hearing AAP Minister Satyendar Jain’s bail plea that he has instructions to move a plea seeking transfer of bail proceedings from the current court. Full Story

4. In the case of Fathima Bushra vs State of Karnataka, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted before the Supreme Court that a student does not forego her fundamental rights the moment she steps into the school gate. Full Story

1. In the case of The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) vs Cricket Association of Bihar, the Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the modification of the constitution of the BCCI with regard to a mandatory three-year cooling-off period after one term for office-bearers. Full Story

2. In the case of Dr Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India and Anr, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed former BJP Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Subramanian Swamy to hand over possession of his Delhi bungalow to the estate officer within six weeks. Full Story

3. During the hearing of the case Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India, legal academician Dr G Mohan Gopal told the Supreme Court that the 103rd Constitutional amendment providing 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) is a deceitful and backdoor attempt to destroy the concept of reservation by granting reservation to forward classes. Full Story

4. In the case of Uttamrao Rambhaji Shelke & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. and connected pleas, the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court held that the appointment of trustees to manage a religious trust is for the public interest of devotees and not for the private interest of the ruling government to accommodate their party workers or politicians. Full Story

1. The Sikkim High Court, in the case of Subash Chandra Chettri vs the State of Sikkim, held that slight penetration of the male sexual organ inside the vagina would constitute rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault even in the absence of any visible physical injury. Full Story

2. While dealing with a farmer’s plea pending before land authorities for over 35 years, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Shri Ishwar Singh vs Land and Building Department and Anr, criticised the ‘Babu’ culture in the Indian bureaucracy terming it a symbol of the colonial mindset and a major obstacle in attaining the goal of becoming a developed nation. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the plea in the case of Vishwanath Pratap Singh vs Election Commission of India, held that an individual cannot claim the right to contest elections and also imposed a 1 lakh cost on the litigant who sought to contest Rajya Saba polls without a proposer to propose his name. Full Story

4. In the case of G Subramanian vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court sought the Tamil Nadu government’s response to a plea by members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) seeking permission to conduct a procession led by a “musical band,” and a public meeting on October 2. Full Story

1. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association at Jammu on Saturday announced that it will resume work for some days in the High Court, District Courts and all courts, tribunals, commissions and revenue courts starting from September 12, Monday. Full Story

2. In the case of Parthsarthi Bajaj vs Health Secretary and Anr, the Supreme Court on Friday last week sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh Health Secretary on a plea filed by a minor boy seeking permission to donate his liver to save his father’s life. Full Story

3. While hearing the case of Nalin Kohli vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition seeking directions to the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) to collect data for revealing a link between the viewing of pornographic material and the commission of sexual offences. Full Story

4. In the case of Viniyog Parivar Trust vs UOI, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a plea seeking directions to the central government to introduce an alcohol prevention policy at the national level. Full Story

1. In the case of Anupam Ghosh and Anr vs Faiz Mohammed and Ors, A recent trend has developed among litigants to level allegations against judges when unfavourable orders are passed, the Supreme Court recently observed.

Recently, the Allahabad High Court also observed that there is a current trend on the part of the general public to overawe judges by complaining and maligning them by levelling baseless allegations. Full Story

2. The Madras High Court said whenever a person voices an opinion against another individual either through the print or electronic media, he or she should exercise caution so as to avoid defamation proceedings. Full Story

3. In the case of Sayaji Dashrath Kawade vs State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court recently ruled that a person charged with corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be convicted on the basis of violation of ethics or morals, but the offence of corruption has to be proved under the Act. Full Story

4. In the case of Nitin Suresh Satghare vs Pancard Clubs Limited, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai on Friday admitted a petition initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Pancard Clubs Limited. Full Story

We have resumed the law news.

Daily Important Law News for Students and Advocates
WritingLaw

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS

We have paused daily law news for the near future.

1. In the case of Saleem Alias Kaliya vs the State of UP, While granting bail to a man accused of committing offences under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday directed him to deposit ₹1 lakh in favour of any one registered Gaushala (cow shelter) and to serve cows for one month. Full Story

2. In the case of Anand vs Chandramma, the Karnataka High Court recently held that the consent of the first wife would be immaterial for consideration of the offence of bigamy. Full Story

3. In the case of Jagjit Singh vs the State of Punjab, a petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of the probe into the killing of singer Sidhu Moose Wala from the Punjab Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Full Story

4. In the case of Ramshankar vs the State of UP, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday granted bail to a person accused under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act after he undertook that he would take care of the survivor, whom he had married, and their child who was born out of the alleged assault. Full Story

Team on break.

1. The Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) has asked junior lawyers and law interns to maintain decorum and follow the dress code prescribed for lawyers by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Kerala High Court. Full Story

2. In the case of Aradhana & Ors. (LRs of Kamlesh Dubey) vs Untraced and Pushpa & Ors. (LRs of Omkar) vs Untraced, a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) in the national capital has asked the Central and Delhi governments to develop measures to deal with motor vehicle accidents happening at a particular stretch of the city, infamously known as the “killer stretch”. Full Story

3. In the case of Rajesh Kumar Abrol vs the UT of J&K, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to Rajesh Kumar Abrol (appellant), a sub-judge, who was convicted by a fast track court in Jammu for raping and cheating a woman who had sought legal help from him in 2018. Full Story

4. In the case of Ardhendu Kumar Das and Anr vs the State of Odisha and Ors, the Supreme Court will deliver its verdict in a plea relating to construction around the Jagannath Puri Temple on Friday, allegedly causing cracks in its foundations. Full Story

1. The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition raising a grievance that the titular character ‘Prithviraj’ in the Bollywood film starring Akshay Kumar is portrayed as a Rajput when he was, in fact, a Gujjar. Full Story

2. In the case of Mohammad Saimullah vs the State Of Meghalaya, the Meghalaya High Court recently held that the act of a man holding the hands of a minor girl, stroking it and saying the same is beautiful, wouldn’t amount to the offence of sexual assault under the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act unless there was sexual intent on his part. Full Story

3. In the case of Lorik Ram vs the State of Assam, the Gauhati High Court recently granted bail to a driver of a courier company on the ground that the rigours of section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) wouldn’t apply to drivers of courier services who are not aware as to what has been loaded in the vehicle they drive. Full Story

4. In the case of Rhea Chakraborty vs Union of India, a special court in Mumbai has allowed Bollywood actress Rhea Chakraborty to travel to Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), to attend the International Indian Film Academy (IIFA) awards from June 2 to June 5. Full Story

1. In the case of Vijay Babu vs the State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday granted interim bail to Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu in a rape case registered against him based on the complaint of an actress. Full Story

2. In the case of Shubham Awasthi & Anr vs Union of India, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking a direction from the Central government to come up with plans to tackle cigarette and smoking addiction. Full Story

3. The Uttar Pradesh government has laid down that no woman worker shall be bound to work without her written consent before 6 am and after 7 pm and shall not be terminated if she denies working during these hours. Full Story

4. In the case of Balusha Bhasal & Anr vs the State of Maharashtra & Ors, the Bombay High Court on Monday asked the State of Maharashtra to decide on a uniform pattern for examinations held in state universities. Full Story

1. In the case of Kantaro Kondagari @ Kajol vs the State of Odisha & Ors, the Odisha High Court recently held that transgender persons have the right to choose their own gender and are entitled to avail of family pension benefits that accrue accordingly. Full Story

2. In the case of Pawan Kumar and Another vs Sri Dewa Nand Tiwari, Nayab Tehsildar, Ambedkar Nagar, the Allahabad High Court recently issued contempt notices to the office bearers of the Ambedkar Nagar Bar Association for purportedly indulging in frequent strikes. Full Story

3. In the case of Babu Khan vs the State of UP, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that it is quite unnatural in Indian culture that a father-in-law would rape his own daughter-in-law along with some other person. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Delhi Police to hand over the status report concerning its investigation into the vandalism outside Chief Minister (CM) Arvind Kejriwal’s house to the CM’s Secretariat. Full Story

1. In the case of Cook Studio vs Coke Studio, the Delhi High Court has referred for mediation a trademark infringement dispute between international music franchise ‘Coke Studio’ and cooking platform named ‘Cook Studio’. Full Story

2. In the case of Sholay Media Entertainment & Anr. vs Yogesh Patel and Ors, the Delhi High Court, in a significant order in a trademark infringement suit, recently imposed costs and damages of ₹25 lakh on a website ‘Sholay.com‘ for infringing the trademark of the legendary Amitabh Bachchan starrer, Sholay. Full Story

3. In the case of Bulbuli Saikia vs Jadav Saikia, the Gauhati High Court recently held that right to receive maintenance from the husband under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a statutory right of a wife, and the husband cannot escape from his liability by signing an agreement to the contrary. Full Story

4. In the case of Snigdha Majumdar vs Union of India, the Allahabad High Court recently sought a reply from the Central government on the issue of custody of a child born out of surrogacy before the implementation of the Surrogacy (Regulations) Act, 2021. Full Story

1. In the case of R Ramaraja Varma vs the State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court on Friday said that organisers of political rallies are also responsible for the provocative slogans raised by any of the participants during such rallies. Full Story

2. In the case of PC George vs the State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court on Friday granted bail to former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) PC Geroge in the two separate hate speech cases registered against him for making communal remarks against Muslim community. Full Story

3. In the case of Rajkaran Patel vs the State of UP, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday refused to grant bail to a lawyer accused of sexually assaulting a law student training under him. The plea was refused on the ground that no reasons were given by the accused in his plea to buttress the submission that this was a false accusation, and the investigation against the other accused remained pending. Full Story

4. The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh high court recently ruled in the case of Waheed ur Rehman Parra vs the UT of J&K through Investigating Officer, P/S Counter Intelligence, that spotting an individual with a member of a terrorist organisation will not be sufficient to attract the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Full Story

1. In the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Ors. vs Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited and Ors, a vacation bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the stay granted by the Delhi High Court on the operation, execution and implementation of the two orders passed by the central government for an investigation into nine companies related to Sahara Group. Full Story

2. In the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation and Another vs Dr Vinay Kumar and Others, the Supreme Court recently held that in the case of direct recruitment, a candidate who has applied does not have any legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion should be carried to its logical end. Full Story

3. In the case of the State of Kerala vs Kirankumar, the Kerala Court made some pertinent observations while convicting and sentencing the husband of Vismaya, a 24-year-old Ayurveda student who died by suicide, regarding the manner in which lives are shattered by the menace of dowry. Full Story

4. In the case of NIA vs Yasin Malik, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front chief Yasin Malik was on Wednesday sentenced to life imprisonment by a Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) judge Parveen Singh in a terror funding case. Full Story

1. In the case of Nimish Agrawal vs Ruhi Agrawal, the Chhattisgarh High Court, while hearing a custody dispute, recently held that the financial status of a parent or their ability to admit the child to a reputed school are not benchmarks for the happiness of the child. Full Story

2. In the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the central government in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition praying that the national song Vande Mataram be given the same status as the national anthem Jana Gana Mana. Full Story

3. In the case of Shree Vishnu Constructions vs Engineer in Chief, Military Engineering Service & Ors, the Supreme Court last week directed all High Courts to decide and dispose of within 6 months, all applications for appointment, substitution or change arbitrators which have been pending for over a year. Full Story

4. In the case of the State of UP vs Sharad Kumar Gupta, the Allahabad High Court recently issued a contempt notice to an advocate for uttering “ugly and harsh words” in the court of the District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi. Full Story

1. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has told a Delhi court that though there was no denial about the existence of Hindu sculptures inside the Qutub Minar complex, a fundamental right to workshop can’t be claimed with respect to the protected monument. Full Story

2. In the case of Zubeeda vs Union Territory of J&K, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court last week refused to grant bail to a 63-year-old woman booked for aiding her 65-year-old husband to commit rape on a minor girl, observing that just because she is an old lady, she isn’t entitled to get any relief. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued a notice in a petition filed by the Punjab Police seeking quashing of the first information report (FIR) registered by the Delhi Police against it in relation to the recent arrest of BJP spokesperson Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga. Full Story

4. A Delhi Court on Tuesday reserved the plea challenging the decision of a civil court dismissing a suit seeking restoration of Hindu and Jain temples at the Qutub Minar complex in the capital. Full Story

Team on leave.

1. A Delhi court observed while sentencing a man to life imprisonment for the rape of his minor daughter who had given birth to his child after the assault that abusive behaviour by a father, albeit a step one, in the initial stages of a girl’s life can negatively impact the way she views relationships in future. Full Story

2. In the case of the State vs Sheikh Sehzad & Anr, a Delhi court remarked while allowing interim bail to a terror accused that every millisecond of unnecessary detention interferes with the rights of the accused. Full Story

3. In the case of Udaipur Chamber of Commerce & Industry vs the State of Rajasthan, the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the State government on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the validity of ‘frequent and wanton’ suspension of internet services in Udaipur. Full Story

4. The First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, in the case of Ishrat Ali vs Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IBBI has held that information pertaining to the name and designation of IBBI officials is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Full Story

1. In the case of Ganpatrao Patil vs the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court last month denied anticipatory bail to the chairman of an international school, booked for allegedly abetting the suicide of a class 10 student by scolding, insulting and using filthy language against the child. Full Story

2. In the case of SD Windlesh vs Government of NCT Delhi & Ors, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday took exception to illegal encroachments in the form of Mazars (Islamic religious structures) on public roads in the Bhajanpura area in the national capital. Full Story

3. In the case of Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi, the Supreme Court has held that every woman in a domestic relationship has a right to reside in the shared household of her husband even after the death of her husband. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court asked the Central government whether it would take responsibility for any loss of life in Sainik Farm because of the embargo on carrying out repairs to old buildings in the area. Full Story

1. In the case of Chitra Ramkrishna, Anand Subramaniam vs CBI, “Money doesn’t talk, it swears,” wrote legendary singer Bob Dylan and these lines were reproduced in the order of the Delhi Court, which denied bail to former National Stock Exchange (NSE) head Chitra Ramkrishna. Full Story

2. The India Today reported that after videography of Gyanvapi mosque discovered a Shivling (idol of Lord Shiva) inside its premises, a local court in Varanasi has ordered the area where the idol was found to be sealed. Full Story

3. L&L Partners has set up an Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) practice and a ‘Green Project’ committee to integrate its business strategies and processes with green initiatives, both internally and externally, and has set a carbon-zero target across all its offices. Full Story

4. In the case of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vs the State of Goa and Another, the Supreme Court recently observed that under section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act, only clerical or arithmetical mistakes towards fixing or revising minimum rates of wages can be corrected. Full Story

1. In the case of Allaparthi Venkata Chalapathi Rao vs the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court last week asked the State government to consider exempting temples with an annual income of less than ₹5 lakh from making mandatory contributions to the State’s Endowment Department. Full Story

2. The Delhi High Court recently issued summons to former Union Minister and serving Member of Parliament Maneka Gandhi in a defamation suit by the Indian Veterinary Association claiming that she abused and threatened doctors. Full Story

3. In the case of Prashant Lomate & Anr vs Union of India & Ors and connected pleas, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently directed Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited to compensate over 3.5 lakh farmers from Osmanabad district of Maharashtra after Soyabean crop loss due to heavy rainfall in the Kharif season of 2020. Full Story

4. In the case of Committee of Management of Anjuman Intezamia Masajid vs Rakhi Singh & Others, a bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud will hear the appeal filed before the Supreme Court against an order of Allahabad High Court permitting a court-appointed commissioner to inspect, conduct survey and videography of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi to which Hindus and Muslims have laid claim for the right to worship. Full Story

1. In the case of Arshika S vs the State of Kerala, while declining to order a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the murder of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) member A Sanjith, the Kerala High Court recently made some scathing observations regarding the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) and Popular Front of India (PFI) who are suspected to be behind the murder. Full Story

2. In the case of Haji Abdul Ghani Khan and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors, the Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the central government and the Election Commission of India to the plea challenging the notifications for the delimitation of assembly constituencies in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Full Story

3. In an unprecedented development, in the case of Delhi Andaman and Nicobar Island Civil Services Officers Association vs Ministry of Home Affairs, a lawyer barged inside the chamber of the chairperson of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Manjula Das and threatened her for passing an order against the central government in a case pending before the tribunal. Full Story

4. A Mumbai court on Friday rejected the petition filed by former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh seeking permission for transfer to a private hospital of his choice for getting shoulder surgery. Full Story

1. In the case of Dr Rajneesh Singh vs Union of India and Ors, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking the opening of certain rooms of the Taj Mahal to put to rest the “alleged history” of the monument. Full Story

2. In the case of Jitender Narayan Tyagi alias Wasim Rizvi vs the State of Uttarakhand & Anr, the Supreme Court on Thursday batted for peace and love between communities while hearing a bail plea filed by Jitendra Tyagi (formerly known as Waseem Rizvi) arrested in connection with the investigation into the hate speeches at the Hardiwar Dharam Sansad held in December 2021. Full Story

3. In the case of CBI vs Sanjay Gupta and Ors, Former Managing Director (MD) of the National Stock Exchange (NSE), Chitra Ramkrishna, accused of frequently revising the designation and compensation of another former NSE employee Anand Subramanian, was on Thursday denied bail by a Special CBI Court in the NSE co-location scam case. Full Story

4. In the case of RIT Foundation vs Union of India, a division bench of Delhi High Court on Wednesday delivered a split verdict regarding the criminalisation of marital rape. Justice C Hari Shankar, who was one of the two judges on the bench, ruled against criminalising marital rape and refused to strike down Exception 2 to section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts non-consensual sex by a man with his wife from the ambit of rape. Full Story

1. In the case of CBI vs Ajoy Bar and connected pleas, the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday pulled up the counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for not being aware of the facts in the West Bengal post-poll violence case. Full Story

2. In Subrata Mazumdar vs Dr Vidya Yeravdekar & Ors, an employee of Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, has approached the Bombay High Court against a communication by the university compelling employees who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 to go on unpaid leave until they are fully vaccinated. Full Story

3. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Golu, the Madhya Pradesh High Court last week directed appropriate action to be taken against a special judge hearing cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) after he failed to consider crucial medical evidence while acquitting an accused. Full Story

1. A division bench of the Delhi High delivered a split verdict in the marital rape case on the validity of exception 2 to section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. The exception effectively provides that charges of rape cannot be attracted against a man who has non-consensual sex with his wife. Full Story

2. In the case of SG Vombatkere vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday asked the central government and states to refrain from registering any cases for the offence of sedition under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Full Story

3. In the case of Hindu Front for Justice vs Union of India, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh issued notice to the central and state governments and the Archaeological Survey of India in a petition seeking to reclaim the Bhojshala complex located in Madhya Pradesh’s Dhar for Hindus and prohibit Muslims from offering Namaz in its premises. Full Story

4. In the case of Naziya B & Ors. vs the State of Kerala, while directing the Kerala University of Health Sciences to disburse maternity benefits to three contract employees, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday observed that employers have an obligation to ensure that maternity is not detrimental to the professional career of female employees. Full Story

1. In the case of SG Vombatkere vs Union of India, the Supreme Court told the Central Government, in a significant development, that it has decided to re-examine and reconsider section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises the offence of sedition. Full Story

2. In the case of West Bengal State Election Commission and Anr. vs Soumendu Adhikari and Ors, the Supreme Court stayed the order passed by the Calcutta High Court directing the West Bengal State Election Commission to send the CCTV footage of Contai Municipal Election for forensic audit to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL). Full Story

3. In the case of Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind vs NDMC, the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) informed the Supreme Court that the Jahangirpuri demolition drive was given an unwarranted communal colour by the petitioners. Full Story

4. In the case of M/s Kelkar and Kelkar vs M/s Hotel Pride Executive Private Limited, the Supreme Court recently held that a High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 if a statute provides an appellate remedy and the same is not exhausted. Full Story

1. In the case of Rima Chawla vs Manager, ESBEDA showroom, Phoenix market city, a Mumbai District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission recently imposed over ₹35,000 costs on a store of ESBEDA, a premium leather accessories selling company, for charging ₹20 for a carry bag over and above the price paid by a customer for an item purchased from the store. Full Story

2. In the case of Amol Vyavhare vs Purnima Shrirangi, publishing a news article about a rift within two sections of the police department would not amount to an offence under section 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code, the Bombay High Court held on Friday. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in the case of Universal City Studios vs Vegamovies.run & Ors, recently ordered the blocking of 12 websites that were illegally streaming, hosting and disseminating the original content of Universal Studios LLC without the company’s authorisation. Full Story

4. In the case of Chandresh Marskole vs the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted and granted ₹42 lakh compensation to a former medical student from a Scheduled Tribe community who was wrongly convicted of murder. Full Story

1. In the case of Canara Bank Staff Union vs Union of India & Ors, the Bombay High Court on Friday came down upon the central government for failing to fill vacancies in tribunals. A Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice VG Bisht was frustrated that the central government had been delaying the appointment of officers in various tribunals causing inconvenience to the litigants. Full Story

2. In the case of Thampi VS vs the State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition which sought to prevent alleged forced vaccination of children across the state. Full Story

3. In the case of Prashant Bhushan vs Union of India and Anr, Justice UU Lalit of the Supreme Court on Friday offered to recuse from hearing a matter related to appeals against criminal contempt pleas after stating that he had been involved as Amicus Curiae in one of the cases before his elevation to the Bench. Full Story

4. In the case of A Divya Reddy vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the central and state governments in a plea seeking directions to carry out artificial insemination of indigenous cows as opposed to foreign breeds. Full Story

1. In the case of Wokeflix Through Megha Choubey vs Union of India and Ors, Facebook (now Meta Platforms) has informed the Delhi High Court that it is a private party and, therefore, the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution cannot be asserted against it. Full Story

2. In the case of TJ vs NDMC & Ors, a three-month-old toddler has moved to the Delhi High court seeking the right to maternal care after his mother was denied maternal leave by her employer, North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC). Full Story

3. The Supreme Court recently allowed for the release of Amitabh Bachchan starrer ‘Jhund’ on over the top (OTT) platform by staying a status quo order of the Telangana High Court. Full Story

4. In the case of the State of Maharashtra vs Rohit Chandrakant Jadhav, a special court in Mumbai recently convicted a 26-year-old man for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for sexually assaulting and impregnating a 15-year-old. Full Story

1. The Delhi High Court recently issued fresh notices to filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri, scientist Anand Ranganathan, and news outlet Swarajya in a suo motu criminal contempt petition initiated over their comments alleging bias on the part of its former judge, Justice S Muralidhar. Full Story

2. In the case of SG Vombatkere vs Union of India and Ors, the Central government has sought another week’s time to file a reply to the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of section 124A IPC, which deals with sedition. Full Story

3. The Kerala High Court recently initiated a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the issue of food safety after reports surfaced about the death of a 16-year-old girl and the hospitalisation of at least 57 others, possibly due to consumption of shawarma from a particular eatery in Kasargod district. Full Story

4. In the case of Dr Vikram Sampath vs Audrey Truschke and Ors, the Delhi High Court last week directed historian Audrey Truschke to delete five more tweets that had allegedly defamatory content against historian Vikram Sampath. Full Story

1. In the case of State of Assam and Anr vs Jignesh Mevani and Anr, the Gauhati High Court stayed the adverse remarks made by a District Judge against the Assam Police while granting bail to Congress leader Jignesh Mevani in an assault case. Full Story

2. In the case of Ajit Kale vs the State of Maharashtra & Anr, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently issued directions to the State government to implement its policy decision to withdraw pending criminal cases against farmers and social activists filed in the course of their agitations. Full Story

3. In the case of Advocate Firoz Babulal Sayyed vs the Union of India & Anr, the Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a blanket restriction on the printing of photographs of Gods and Goddesses in newspapers. Full Story

4. In the case of Simi CN vs the State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court recently held that decriminalisation of the offence of attempt to commit suicide under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is a more humane and effective way of dealing with the issue. Full Story

1. In the case of Reshma vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court on Monday sought the response of the Central government on a petition seeking a declaration that a Muslim man has to obtain written permission from his wife/wives before contracting another marriage. Full Story

2. In the case of Ajmal Ahmed R vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Central government on a plea challenging the decision of the Lakshadweep administration to close dairy farms and omit meat from the menu of mid-day meal in schools on the Lakshadweep islands. Full Story

3. In the case of Dr Jacob Puliyel vs Union of India, the Supreme Court recently ruled that while no individual can be forced to get vaccinated, the current vaccination policy followed by the government as regards restrictions imposed on individuals is not arbitrary. Full Story

4. In the case of Peoples Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court on Monday called for a response from the Home department of the Maharashtra government in a public interest litigation petition seeking immediate steps to ensure that telephonic or electronic modes of communication are implemented in all prisons in the state. Full Story

• April 2022 Law News
• March 2022 Law News
• February 2022 Law News
• January 2022 Law News
• December 2021 Law News
• November 2021 Law News
• October 2021 Law News
• September 2021 Law News
• August 2021 Law News
• July 2021 Law News
• June 2021 Law News
• May 2021 Law News
• April 2021 Law News
• March 2021 Law News
• February 2021 Law News
• January 2021 Law News
• December 2020 Law News

May 2022 – Law News for Students and Advocates
WritingLaw

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS

1. The Bombay High Court in the case of Nitin Gopinath Bhailume and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra recently allowed two prisoners sentenced to death in 2017 for raping and murdering a young girl, to continue their education through open universities during incarceration. Full Story

2. In the case of Nilima Bose vs the State of Assam, the Gauhati High Court ordered the release of a 22-year-old youth who spent six years in a detention centre after he was accused of illegally entering India from Bangladesh after the boy’s mother moved the High Court claiming that her son, an Indian, was suffering from schizophrenia and had run away from home. Full Story

3. In the case of Dina Ramliani Ralte vs Shenpenn Khymsar & Anr, the Delhi Court has prima facie found a case of copyright infringement in a legal battle over the works of late Parikrama band member and musician Sonam Sherpa allegedly being used in a movie without consent. Full Story

1. In the case of Tarun Preet Singh vs Union of India and Anr, twenty-five years after three men were shot at by Delhi Police in Connaught Place, the Delhi High Court has directed the Central government to pay a compensation of ₹15 lakh plus 8% interest per annum to the sole survivor of the encounter. Full Story

2. In the case of Vijay Babu vs the State of Kerala, Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu has moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a rape case that was registered against him after an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Full Story

3. In the case of Jaanki Yadav vs Gorakhnath Yadav, the Chhattisgarh High Court, while denying maintenance to a wife and daughter, held that the law presumes in favour of marriage and is against concubinage. Full Story

4. In the case of Vipul vs the State of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday held that the mere involvement of an accused in other cases cannot be the sole basis to deny bail to a person and keep him confined in perpetuity. Full Story

1. In the case of Zenobia Poonwalla vs Rustom Ginwalla & Ors, Justice GS Kulkarni of the Bombay High Court recently forbade a lawyer from appearing before him in any matter in the future, citing his allegedly arrogant behaviour within the courtroom. Full Story

2. In the case of Navneet Rana vs the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court recently observed that threatening to recite religious verses either at someone else’s personal residence or at public places breaches the personal liberty of others. Full Story

3. In the case of Nawab Malik vs Enforcement Directorate & Ors, Maharashtra Cabinet minister Nawab Malik has approached the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) seeking medical bail and permission to conduct surgery in a private hospital in Mumbai. Full Story

4. In the case of Ranbir Singh vs SK Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), being a statutory body, is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Full Story

1. In the case of Kanishka Pandey vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central and State governments to respond to the suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae for declaring the right to physical activity and literacy as a fundamental right. Full Story

2. In the case of Ashwini Upadhyay vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Central government on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking integration of Allopathy, Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani and other forms of medicine systems in a holistic, integrated common syllabus for all medical colleges. Full Story

3. In the case of Indra Pasricha vs Deepika Chauhan & Ors, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday held a party in civil contempt, observing that disobedience of court orders, if permitted, will result in striking at the root of the rule of law on which our system of governance is based. Full Story

4. In the case of CBI vs Aakar Patel, the Delhi High Court’s Justice Talwant Singh on Wednesday recused from hearing a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a Special Court order setting aside the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by CBI against former Amnesty International India head Aakar Patel. Full Story

1. In the case of Nitin Hundiwala vs Union of India, the Bombay High Court earlier this month held that a calculated risk of boarding an overcrowded local train will not amount to a “criminal act” under section 124A of the Railways Act of 1989. Full Story

2. In the case of Somvir vs the State of Haryana, the Punjab & Haryana High Court last week refused to grant custody of a 3-year-old child to her father on the ground that he was accused of causing the wife’s dowry death. Full Story

3. In the case of Nasima vs the State of UP, the Supreme Court has transferred the investigation into the Unnao custodial death case to Lucknow Police after it noted that the probe conducted by Unnao (Uttar Pradesh) police prima facie seemed unfair. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court took exception to the stand of the Uttarakhand government that it cannot stop Dharam Sansad events and cannot anticipate that hate speech might be delivered at such gatherings. Full Story

1. In the case of Saurabh Bharadwaj vs Delhi Police, Through Its Commissioner and Anr, the Delhi High Court on Monday pulled up the Delhi Police for its failure to prevent the vandalism by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) workers outside the residence of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Full Story

2. In the case of Vaishali (Minor) (Through Next Friend Mrs Sita Devi) vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Monday stopped the demolition of around 200 Jhuggis at Delhi’s Sarojini Nagar and asked the Central government to not take any coercive action till May 2. Full Story

3. Member of Parliament Naveent Rana and her husband, independent Member of Legislative Assembly Ravi Rana, have approached Bombay High Court seeking quashing of case slapped against them for assault of public servant after they threatened to recite Hanuman Chalisa outside Maharashtra Chief Minister (CM) Uddhav Thackeray’s private residence. Full Story

4. In the case of Madras Bar Association vs Union of India, Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana said on Monday that he is considering setting up a special bench to hear cases relating to tribunals, their functioning and appointments. Full Story

1. In the case of Rinku Sharma vs the State of MP, the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted bail to an accused in an attempt to murder case on the condition that he plants 10 saplings and care for them. Full Story

2. In the case of Ganesh Shankar Pilane vs the State of Maharashtra & Ors, the Bombay High Court recently quashed a first information report (FIR) against a man booked for rape and sexual assault against a minor after she granted her consent to quash the criminal proceedings claiming she wanted to focus on her academic career. Full Story

3. In the case of Rajkumar vs the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a person accused of human trafficking since the alleged victims had not made an allegation of exploitation in their statements. Full Story

4. In the case of the State of Maharashtra vs Rajani Vijay Angre & Ors, a magistrate court in Mumbai’s Kurla recently acquitted five women accused of unlawfully assembling to protest against the shortage in water supply in their neighbourhood. Full Story

1. In Ankita Mishra vs the State of UP, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh police to take action on a priority basis in a matter concerning a girl’s abduction from the chamber of a lawyer. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court initiated a suo motu case to examine and institutionalise the process involved in the collection of data and information to decide the award of sentence in death penalty cases. A three-judge bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha suggested that the top court would lay down guidelines to be followed by courts across India while considering cases involving the award of death penalty. Full Story

3. In the case of Rajesh Kunte vs Rahul Gandhi, a Bhiwandi court this week imposed a fine of ₹1,000 against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader Rajesh Kunte for seeking adjournment in the defamation proceedings initiated against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. Full Story

4. In the case of Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Shailendra Bhatnagar, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the compensation awarded to a consumer who suffered injuries due to the non-deployment of airbags of his Hyundai Creta car during a collision as a consequence of which he suffered head, chest and dental injuries. Full Story

1. In the case of Vasanth Aditya J vs the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court recently declined to quash criminal proceedings against an advocate accused of assaulting and harassing an intern who was working at a law firm. Full Story

2. In the case of Britannia Industries Private Limited vs Parle Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Anr, the Delhi High Court has directed Parle Biscuits to modify two of its advertisements by blurring the image of the cookies used in the ads since they resemble Britannia’s Good Day biscuits. Full Story

3. In the case of Multiplex Association of India vs the State of Andhra, the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed an interim order in favour of the Multiplex Association of India in a plea challenging the government’s decision to include service charges for online bookings in movie theatres to the overall price for admission. Full Story

4. In the case of Jamiat Ulama I Hind vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it would take a serious view of the apparent disobedience of its order to maintain the status quo in relation to the Jahangirpuri demolition drive that was slated to be carried out by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC). Full Story

1. In the case of Rinky Rani vs Daljit Kumar, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently refused to entertain a transfer petition filed by the wife in a matrimonial dispute, stating that the plea was nothing but sweet revenge by her to prevent the husband from seeking his rights. Full Story

2. While hearing the case of Venkatesh @ Chandra vs the State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that any debate or discussion on a public platform such as a television channel touching on criminal cases which are in the domain of courts would amount to direct interference in the administration of criminal justice. Full Story

3. In the case of Rohit Madan vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court has sought a status report from the central government on the steps it has taken to meet its international obligations and commitments on the issue of climate change. Full Story

4. The Kerala High Court, while hearing the case of TN Suraj vs the State of Kerala, observed that intense media scrutiny on cases and publishing of leaked information and half-truths about ongoing trials impede the faith of the public in the justice delivery system. Full Story

1. The issue of pendency of cases came up for discussion during the hearing of a case relating to the ban on manufacturer and use of firecrackers across India. While answering the issue, Justice Shah stated, “One of the reasons for pendency is letter for adjournments. Everyday, 5 to 6 matters in criminal matters adjournments letters are given, where personal difficulty is cited”. Full Story

2. In the case of Micropark Logistics Pvt Ltd vs the State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Bombay High Court recently quashed all blacklisting orders issued by the Regional Transport Office (RTO) against several Bharat Stage-IV (BS-IV) compliant vehicles which were sold as second-hand sales after the Supreme Court mandated deadline of March 31, 2020. Full Story

3. In the case of Joseph vs the State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court declined to interfere with the inter-faith relationship between one Joisna Mary Joseph and Shejin, which had sparked “love jihad” allegations in the State. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court, in the case of Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors vs Sundaresh Bhatt & Ors, held that the salary wages of employees during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) are to be treated as costs for asset distribution purposes under the IBC. Full Story

1. In the case of Jagjeet Singh vs Ashish Mishra, a victim of a crime cannot be asked to wait till the trial begins to assert his/her right to participate in criminal proceedings against the accused, the Supreme Court observed on Monday while cancelling the bail granted to Ashish Mishra in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. Full Story

2. In the case of Child Marriage Prohibition Committee and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra & Ors, Bombay High Court, on observing that there were hardly any first information reports (FIRs) registered against prevailing child marriages, asked the Maharashtra government to explain the steps it has taken to prohibit the practice. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court, while hearing the case of George Abraham vs Union of India and Ors, sought the response of the Central government, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (IIT Delhi) on a plea seeking constitution of a committee to formulate guidelines so that visually impaired persons can access online and technology-based banking services. Full Story

4. A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the recent communal violence at Delhi’s Jahangirpuri and in seven other States during Ram Navami. Full Story

1. In the case of Jean George & Anr vs Serum Institute of India & Ors, parents of a 19-year-old girl who passed away allegedly due to a rare-immunogenic response to the Covishield vaccine have moved the Kerala High Court seeking compensation of ₹10 crores. Full Story

2. In the case of Soho Pub and Grill vs State of Karnataka and Ors, the Karnataka High Court recently directed the police not to harass a restaurant for having a hookah bar that allows customers to smoke hookah. Full Story

3. The Bombay High Court suggested in the case of Choice Developers vs Pantnagar Pearl CHS Ltd. & Ors, while ordering the non-cooperating members to vacate their residential units for the redevelopment of the building that minority members of a co-operative society opposing redevelopment of the society building should be held accountable for the delay caused. Full Story

4. While ordering a woman to grant access of her children to her estranged husband for a period of four days, the Bombay High Court observed that the children have the right to love and affection of both parents as well as grandparents. Full Story

1. While hearing the case of Madan Lal vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Another, the Supreme Court recently observed that hawkers cannot claim the right to keep their goods and wares overnight at the place where they are hawking. Full Story

2. In the case of Sh Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs Smt Deepika Sharma, the Delhi High Court has held that one or occasional acts of adultery committed in isolation do not amount to “living in adultery” and, therefore, do not disentitle (deprive) a woman from maintenance after divorce! Full Story

3. In the case of Giri vs the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad last week ordered a local Zilla Parishad to consider the application filed by a widow seeking a compassionate appointment after she gave an undertaking by way of an affidavit that she will take proper care of her aged mother-in-law. Full Story

4. In the case of Sushama Arun Patil vs the State of Maharashtra & Ors, the Bombay High Court last week imposed costs of ₹25,000 on a litigant and directed the same to be deposited with the prison at Kalamba in Kolhapur to purchase books for its library. Full Story

1. In the case of Master Arjun Choudhary vs Chairman, the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday said that a lawyer cannot insist on the recusal of a judge or transfer of a case to another bench. The single-judge said that the conduct of the counsel was highly objectionable and contemptuous. Full Story

2. While Supreme Court was hearing the case of Quran Ali vs Union of India, the Delhi Police has told the court that there were no instances of hate speech at the Delhi Dharam Sansad since “no specific words against any particular community was used.” Full Story

3. In the case of Kamatchi vs Lakshmi Narayanan, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 need not be filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence. Full Story

4. In the case of Jahir Hak vs the State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to a person accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) after noting that the person has been in custody for almost 8 years and the prosecution has examined only 6 out of the 109 witnesses. Full Story

1. In the case of Kirit Somaiya vs the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kirit Somaiya in connection with a case of misappropriation of funds registered by the Mumbai Police. Full Story

2. While hearing the case of Qurban Ali and Another vs Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court asked the Uttarakhand government to file a status report in connection with the alleged hate speech targeting the Muslim community delivered at the Haridwar Dharam Sansad last year. Full Story

3. In the case of Rahamathulla vs the State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, a Chennai resident has moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the case registered against him in Karnataka for allegedly threatening the judges of the Karnataka High Court who had delivered the Hijab verdict. Full Story

4. While hearing the case of Sanju Tanti vs the State of Tripura, the Tripura High Court held that touching the hands of a minor without any intention to molest will not attract charges of sexual assault under section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act! Full Story

1. In the case of Noor Paul vs Union of India, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently held that not supplying a copy of a Look Out Circular (LOC) to the concerned person at the airport is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Full Story

2. In the case of Vitthal Chaudhari vs the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court recently held that for establishing an offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there should be direct or indirect evidence to show that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit the act and a mere allegation of harassment won’t amount to abetment of suicide. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court heard a plea by a former student challenging the mandatory module on colour editing and him being debarred for not clearing the same on account of his colour blindness. Therefore, the Court asked the Film & Television Institute of India (FTII) to ensure that its curricula and admissions are open to all, including the specially-abled candidates and those who are colour blind. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court, in the case of Central Council for Indian Medicine vs Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College, held that under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, no medical college can open a new course, or postgraduate course, or course of study or training without the prior approval of the Central government. Full Story

1. In the case of Lasya Kahli vs Union of India, the Passport Rules of 1980 requiring a transgender person to produce certificates of gender reassignment surgery for issuance of passport with declared sex is prima facie violative of Article 21, the Delhi High Court remarked on Monday. Full Story

2. Vijay Saini, who had been sentenced to life by trial court for the murder of a 21-year-old, moved the High Court challenging the trial court judgment. The Delhi High Court denied bail and said that there should be zero tolerance for anybody who intimidates a girl, woman or child and that society should ensure that women do not have to fear when they step out of their homes. Full Story

3. In the case of Mallada K Sri Ram vs State of Telangana and Others, it is said that the government cannot exercise preventive detention powers merely because the concerned person has been implicated in a criminal proceeding, the Supreme Court recently observed while setting aside a preventive detention order. Full Story

4. While a Bench led by the CJI was hearing a batch of petitions seeking lifting of the ban on mining and export of iron ore in Karnataka, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana remarked that official replies should be filed and submitted before the court first before it is sent to media houses and journalists. Full Story

1. Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana on Saturday highlighted the importance of mediation as a mode of resolving disputes which could also go a long way in saving judicial time and resources. To support his point, CJI recounted an episode from Mahabharata when Lord Krishna attempted mediation in a bid to prevent the Kurukshetra war. Full Story

2. In the case of Annie Gurmeher Kaur vs University of Delhi and Anr, the Delhi High Court has quashed the policy of the University of Delhi (DU), which provided that the result of revaluation will not be taken into consideration for the award of gold medals and prizes. Full Story

3. In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India and Another, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that it has no power to de-register political parties that promise and distribute freebies to voters before and after elections. Full Story

4. In the case of Iqbal Ahmed vs CBI, SCB, the Karnataka High Court recently held that it is not necessary for a first information report (FIR) to be registered immediately after receiving information about a cognizable offence for the investigation to be valid. Full Story

1. In the case of Noel Harper vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutional validity of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 (FRCA Amendment Act), which imposed restrictions on the way foreign contributions are handled by organisations based in India. Full Story

2. In the case of Rohan Pradeep Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra, a Thane court denied anticipatory bail to a 32-year-old Navi Mumbai man who allegedly misled his wife by concealing his homosexuality from her. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court, in the case of Shailendra Kumar Yadav vs State, has held that sexual relations established on a genuine promise of marriage that later failed to fructify due to external circumstances is not rape. Justice Subramonium Prasad further added that there is a difference between a false promise of marriage and the breach of a promise to marry. Full Story

4. In the case of Anil Deshmukh vs Enforcement Directorate & Ors., the Bombay High Court on Friday remarked that it would be unfair to hear new cases when cases of prisoners languishing in jails for years together are pending before it. Full Story

1. The Delhi High Court granted interim protection from arrest and coercive action to Spicejet promoter Ajay Singh in a case of alleged fraud in the transfer of shares of the airlines to certain individuals. Full Story

2. In the case of Ramesh Razdan vs the State of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court requested the Haryana government to look into the plight of Kashmiri Pandits who lost their homes at the hands of terrorists in Jammu & Kashmir in the year 1990-91. Full Story

3. The Bombay High Court recently asked the Central government and the Maharashtra government to resolve their differences outside the court and decide whether or not the car shed for the Mumbai Metro needs to be shifted from the city’s Kanjurmarg area to Aarey Colony, part of which was declared a forest last year. Full Story

4. In the case of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority vs the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court directed that the salary of the Principal Secretary in the Health and Family Welfare (Medical Education) Department of the state be withheld until an MRI machine is installed and made operational at the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (DIMHANS). Full Story

1. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs Atmaram Lakhara, the Rajasthan High Court recently commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment of four men of a family convicted for killing four persons, including a minor, over a land dispute. Full Story

2. In the case of Aman Vachar vs Union of India, an order of the central government which mandated judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to seek political clearance for their private visits abroad was struck down by the Delhi High Court. Full Story

3. In the State of Maharashtra vs Sachin Suresh Wadekar, a special court in Mumbai convicted and sentenced a 37-year-old man to 25 years in jail for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) after he was found guilty of raping his adolescent daughter multiple times. Full Story

4. The Kerala High Court, in the case of Saumya MS vs the State of Kerala & Ors, held that a person who had earlier enrolled as an advocate and later suspended legal practice to serve as a government employee cannot be treated as a “member of the Bar”. Full Story

1. In the case of Ramachandran @ Chandran vs the State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court recently held that sex on a promise to marry will amount to rape only if it violates the decisional autonomy of the victim. Moreover, lack of consent in a rape case cannot be presumed merely because a man entered into marriage with another woman after engaging in a sexual act with the victim. Full Story

2. In the case of Delhi Rozi-Roti Adhikar Abhiyan vs Union of India & Ors, the Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar to avail food grains under the National Food Security Act (NFSA). Full Story

3. The Madras High Court, in the case of Vasanthakumar vs Union of India, declared section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as unconstitutional, which made a member of the Indian Legal Service eligible for appointment as a judicial member in the appellate tribunal under the Act. Full Story

4. The Bombay High Court finally agreed to hear a petition seeking a declaration that the collection of fines from citizens for not wearing masks by ‘clean-up marshals’ during COVID-19 lockdowns in Mumbai was illegal. Full Story

1. During the case of Pooja Agarwal vs the State of Assam and Anr, the Gauhati High Court upheld the minimum age requirement for the appointment of District Judges in the State. A Bench of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Soumitra Saikia held that Rule 7 of the Assam Judicial Service Rules of 2003 providing for appointees to grade-1 judicial officers in the state to be at least 35 years of age is not arbitrary. Full Story

2. In the case of Bombay Lawyers Association vs the Registrar General, Supreme Court of India & Ors, the Bombay High Court refused to urgently list a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a permanent mechanism to fill up vacancies of judges in the High Court. Full Story

3. In the case of Hanuman Anandrao Pendam vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently sentenced Nagpur Central Prison’s Superintendent, Anupkumar Kumre, to seven days in jail for contempt of court after finding that he had selectively denied prisoners emergency parole during the COVID-19 pandemic. Full Story

4. In the case of State vs Surender Soni & Ors., the court observed that It would be sheer wastage of judicial time if charges were to be framed against three accused in a Delhi Riots case while discharging them. Full Story

1. In the case of Shehjada Hanifbhai Patel vs Bilkis, the Gujarat High Court recently refused to interfere with a Family Court’s order where an application by the petitioner-father for interim custody of his children aged 17 and 12 years was rejected. Full Story

2. Activist Medha Patkar has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition before the Bombay High Court seeking directions to the Maharashtra government to urgently fill up the vacancies in the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) and to provide adequate and timely release of funds and necessary facilities including a website for SPCA. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court, in the case of Municipal Committee, Barwala, District Hissar, Haryana Through its Secretary/President vs Jai Narayan and Company and Another, recently reiterated that the highest bidder in an auction does not have any legal and equitable right to claim the auctioned property unless the same is approved by the state government or any other authority. Full Story

4. In the case of Leelamma Eapen vs the District Magistrate, Kottayam, the Kerala High Court recently held that Maintenance Tribunals under the Senior Citizens Act have the jurisdiction to issue directions to the children or relatives of senior citizens to not deprive them of their earnings. Full Story

1. In the case of Bhagyashri Jaiswal vs Jagdish Sajjanlal Jaiswal & Anr., the Bombay High Court recently declined to interfere with a Nanded court’s orders directing a school teacher to pay interim maintenance to her ex-husband, who claimed to have no sources of income. Full Story

2. In the case of Union of India, MCA vs Delhi Gymkhana Club, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Friday allowed the Central government’s plea to take over the affairs of the Delhi Gymkhana Club, appointing a 15-member committee to manage its affairs. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court of India has officially announced that hearings before it will be via physical mode from April 4, Monday. Furthermore, the Court has decided to provide an option to litigants and lawyers to appear virtually for their cases on miscellaneous days, i.e. Mondays and Fridays. Full Story

4. In the case of Ajay Singh vs State, the Delhi court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of SpiceJet promoter Ajay Singh in relation to an alleged cheating case. Full Story

• March 2022 Law News
• February 2022 Law News
• January 2022 Law News
• December 2021 Law News
• November 2021 Law News
• October 2021 Law News
• September 2021 Law News
• August 2021 Law News
• July 2021 Law News
• June 2021 Law News
• May 2021 Law News
• April 2021 Law News
• March 2021 Law News
• February 2021 Law News
• January 2021 Law News
• December 2020 Law News

April 2022 – Law News for Students and Advocates
WritingLaw

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS

1. In the case of M Kharkongor vs the State of Meghalaya, the Meghalaya High Court suggested that ‘flying army checker’ teams be deployed for surprise checks on Army vehicles after it emerged that they might allegedly be used to traffic drugs. Full Story

2. In the case of Laxmi Tunga vs the State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the regional head of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate questioning of Dr. SP Sinha, long-time advisor of the School Service Commission, during the course of the day. Full Story

3. In the case of State vs Ashabuddin, the Delhi High court held that merely because a person is a Muslim and governed by personal laws on various issues, he cannot be debarred from availing the rights of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Full Story

4. The Mumbai court granted 60 additional days to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to file chargesheet in the cruise ship drug case in which Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan is the prime accused. Full Story

1. In the case of Wokeflix through Megha Chaubey vs Union of India and Ors, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) has told the Delhi High Court that action taken by social media platforms against accounts should be proportionate to the offending content and taking down the account itself should be only the last resort. Full Story

2. The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to three Kashmiri students who were charged with sedition after raising pro-Pakistan slogans following Pakistan’s victory in a T-20 Cricket World Cup match against India. Full Story

3. In the case of WhatsApp LLC vs Competition Commission of India and Anr, the Delhi High Court expressed its concern regarding the privacy policies of social media companies like Facebook (now Meta), observing that the sharing and scraping of people’s personal data by these companies need to be examined. Full Story

4. In the case of HRAI vs Commissioner, State Excise & Ors, the Bombay High Court dismissed petitions by individuals hotels and restaurants and associations representing such establishments seeking concessions on license renewal fees for vending foreign liquor. Full Story

1. In the case of MV Chackochan & Ors. vs Union of India, the Kerala High Court held that the State government is empowered to invoke the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) to acquire land for the Silverline project of the Kerala Rail Development Corporation Limited (K-Rail). Full Story

2. A plea was recently filed by the NGOs Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha (SANGRAM) and Muskaan Sanstha, along with two aggrieved transgender persons before the Bombay High Court seeking implementation of Supreme Court guidelines that mandate the inclusion of transgender persons in public sector employment. Full Story

3. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs Jayesh Vasdev Jeswani, a doctor accused of committing unnatural offences against a man was acquitted by a Mumbai court on the ground that the survivor man could not have recognised the doctor who was wearing a PPE kit. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed in the case of Anand Kumar Pandey vs The Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr, challenging the Delhi government’s decision on full resumption of physical classes in schools from April 1. Full Story

1. A plea was moved before the Telangana High Court in the case of Mohammed Sami Ullah Qureshi vs The Government of Telangana, challenging the making, releasing, and telecasting of certain ‘objectionable’ scenes in The Kashmir Files, which as per the plea, shows mass murders of Kashmiri Pandits by Muslims and exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir Insurgency. In addition, the plea has been dismissed as withdrawn. Full Story

2. In the case of Aditya Singh Deshwal vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court on Monday asked social media platform Twitter why it was not taking action and suspending accounts that post objectionable content about Hindu gods and goddesses when even accounts of former United States President Donald Trump was suspended. Full Story

3. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has moved the Supreme Court under the case of Munisa Bushra Abedi vs the State of Karnataka against the Karnataka High Court judgment, which held that the Hijab is not an essential religious practice (ERP) of Islam and, thereby, upheld the power given to colleges to ban wearing of Hijab in the college campus. Full Story

4. The Bombay High Court recently held in the case of Kasturi Sushma Khandekar vs the State of Maharashtra that the child raised by the mother was entitled to take her caste. Based on the Vigilance Enquiry Officer’s enquiry, a Bench of Justices GA Sanap and SB Shukre found that the petitioner, after her parents’ divorce, had been raised by her mother with her caste’s customs and traditions. Full Story

1. In the case of Court on Its Own Motion vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors, the Delhi High Court has yet again expressed its displeasure about the failure of authorities to come up with a common protocol to check mosquito breeding and the spread of dengue in the national capital. Full Story

2. In the case of National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled vs Department of Empowerment for Persons with Disabilities, the Supreme Court on Friday allowed disabled candidates to file provisional applications for admission to the Indian Police Service (IPS), the Indian Railways Protection Force Service (IRPFS) and the Delhi, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep Police Service (DANIPS) as their preferred cadre at the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Full Story

3. In the case of Union of India vs Central Information Commission and Anr, the Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act applies to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) if the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Full Story

4. With nine impending retirements, one resignation and no new appointments so far in 2022, the Bombay High Court is facing an acute shortage of judges. The sentiment was reflected by Chief Justice (CJ) Dipankar Datta, who on two separate occasions bemoaned in open court about the vacant position in the chartered High Court and the strain of workload on other judges due to the same. Full Story

1. In the case of Arulmighu Palapattarai vs Pappayee, the Madras High Court on Friday took a serious view of a temple being constructed on a public road and stated that even if God encroaches upon public space, courts will direct removal since public interest and the rule of law must be safeguarded. Full Story

2. In the case of State of Uttarakhand vs Dr Sanjay Singh Chauhan, the Supreme Court has held that both AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) and allopathy doctors working in government hospitals are entitled to equal pay and discriminating between the two amounts to a violation of the right to equality under Article 14. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court on Friday emphasised the need to promote youth of Kashmir by ensuring their education. A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant further added that the Court would refrain from passing orders which could negatively impact the education of young Kashmiri students. Full Story

4. A public interest litigation has been filed before the Bombay High Court raising issues related to child marriages in Maharashtra and non-implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA). The petition filed through advocates Asim Sarode and Ajinkya Udane pointed out that a large number of child marriage go unreported, and the actual number of such marriages is much higher than the official figures. Full Story

1. A Kashmiri Pandit organisation has moved the Supreme Court by way of a curative petition seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the 1990 massacre of the Pandits in Kashmir. The plea filed by Roots in Kashmir has challenged an order of the top court passed in 2017 that had dismissed a plea for a probe into the violence. Full Story

2. In the case of Sanjay Gupta vs State of UP and Anr, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday quashed a magistrate’s summons issued to Dainik Jagran Editor-In-Chief Sanjay Gupta for publishing an allegedly defamatory news item. Full Story

3. The Delhi court denied bail to former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case registered against him in connection with the Delhi Riots of February 2020. Full Story

4. In the case of Saroja vs Postmaster, the Kerala High Court recently came to the aid of a domestic help by ordering post office authorities to disburse a deposit of hers with full interest. The court also imposed costs of ₹5,000 on the Post Office authorities, which will be paid to the petitioner. Full Story

1. In the case of Jyoti Yadav vs Neeraj Yadav, the Delhi High Court has held that unfounded accusations of unchastity or extra-marital relationship is a grave assault on character, reputation and health of a spouse, which causes mental pain, and suffering and also amounts to cruelty. Full Story

2. In the case of B Muthuramalingam vs the Secretary, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reiterated recently that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right by an employee. Justice SM Subramaniam, while acknowledging that consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of the employee, stated that the question for consideration would only arise if an administrative decision is taken to prepare a panel of eligible persons. Full Story

3. The Mumbai City Civil Court refused interim relief to Bollywood actor Salman Khan in his defamation suit filed against Ketan Kakkad and others for allegedly making derogatory remarks against him and his family over a land sale transaction. Full Story

4. The Union Home Secretary wrote to states and union territories that looking at the overall improvement in the COVID-19 pandemic situation in the country, there is no further need to invoke the Disaster Management Act for containment measures. Full Story

1. In the case of Puran Chand Sharma vs the State of Haryana, a single-judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has referred a case to Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha for initiation of departmental action against Yamuna Nagar Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Arvind Kumar. Full Story

2. Members of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) on Tuesday unanimously passed a resolution to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to deal with sexual harassment complaints in accordance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Full Story

3. In the case of Subrata Pradhan vs the State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court recently dropped charges of rape and penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 against an accused owing to the absence of a medical examination report of the victim. Full Story

4. In the case of M/S NG Projects Limited vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain, the Supreme Court on Monday held that courts should be reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. Full Story

1. In Hinu Mahajan and Anr vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice on a plea seeking recovery of damages from people involved in the destruction of public property that took place during the Delhi Riots of February 2020 as well as protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Full Story

2. In the case of Om Sehgal vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking recovery of the debt owed by Pakistan to India, which allegedly now amounts to over ₹1 trillion. Full Story

3. In the case of Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Monday disposed of a plea seeking the evacuation of Indian students from Ukraine after taking note of the fact that all students have been brought back to India. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court of India has delivered a split verdict in the case of Gangadhar Narayan Nayak vs State of Karnataka on the question of whether permission from a magistrate is needed by the police to probe the offence of revealing a victim’s identity under section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Full Story

1. In the case of Khurshidurehman S Rehman vs State of UP And Another, the Allahabad High Court recently reiterated that there is no law that penalises the non-fulfilment of poll promises made by political parties in their election manifesto. Full Story

2. While dismissing a bail application in a drugs case (Vikas Kumar vs State), the Delhi High Court recently held that courts need to be conscious of the legislative intent behind passing the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act when granting bail in such matters. Full Story

3. In the case of Women in Cinema Collective vs State of Kerala & Ors., the Kerala High Court issued a slew of directions with regard to the requirement of setting up Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in organisations and production units in the film industry and political parties. Full Story

4. In the case of The Selection Authority and Secretary vs Geetha Dattatreya Gokarn, the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has reiterated that caste certificate is different from income certificate and cannot be treated alike. Full Story

Courts closed today due to festival.

1. In the case of Maatr Foundation vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday issued notice to the State government on a public interest litigation petition (PIL) assailing the constitutional validity of the MP Bhiksha Vritti Nivaran Adhiniyam, which criminalises begging. Full Story

2. A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court in the case of Sajeeda Begum vs The State of Karnataka, challenging the Karnataka High Court’s Hijab judgment which held that Hijab is not an essential religious practice (ERP) of Islam and, thereby, upheld the power given to colleges to ban wearing of Hijab in the college campus. Full Story

3. In the case of Wing Commander Shyam Naithani vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court has held that High Courts have the power of judicial review over the orders and judgments of Armed Forces Tribunals. A Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla stated that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act excludes administrative supervision of the High Courts under Article 227(4) of the Constitution, but not judicial superintendence and certainly not jurisdiction under Article 226. Full Story

4. The Kerala High Court recently declared that even when one parent of a minor born in India is not an Indian Citizen, the child is entitled to be issued an Indian Passport. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas further added that a minor who has acquired citizenship by birth as per section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 cannot be regarded as a stateless child because her mother is an American citizen. Full Story

1. In the case of Irfan Ur Rahim Khan vs Farha Khan, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that if there is a conflict between the personal law to which a minor is subject, and the consideration of a minors’ welfare, the latter must prevail. A Division Bench of Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Rajani Dubey took into account the children’s choice in a custody dispute while emphasising that children cannot be treated as a commodity in a battle between the father and mother. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court refused an early hearing of the appeals against the Karnataka High Court verdict, which effectively upheld the ban on wearing Hijab in educational institutions in the State. The matter was mentioned today by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, who said, “The urgency is this that there are several girls who have to attend colleges.” Full Story

3. While hearing the case of Saj Food Products Pvt Ltd vs State of Meghalaya & Ors., the Meghalaya High Court stated that the Value Added Tax (VAT) exemption granted to bread in the State cannot be extended to rusk as rusk is different from bread. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court allowed the State of Tamil Nadu to implement 50% reservation for in-service doctors in super speciality courses in NEET-SS admissions for the academic year 2021-2022. Full Story

1. In the case of Smt Resham vs State of Karnataka and Ors, the Karnataka High Court (CJ Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit and Justice JM Khazi) has upheld the State Government Order (GO) of February 5, effectively empowering colleges to ban the wearing of Hijab (headscarves) by Muslim girl students in educational institutions in the State. Full Story

2. In the case of Piyush Kumar Anchal vs State of Chhattisgarh, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently echoed the legal principle that even an illegitimate son or daughter is entitled to compassionate appointment on the death of their father. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court, in the case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. vs Union of India, granted interim relief to Malayalam news channel MediaOne, staying the central government’s decision to revoke the channel’s security clearance. Full Story

4. While hearing the case of Kismatun vs State of NCT of Delhi Through Home Department and Ors, the Delhi High Court asked the Delhi Police to fairly conduct its investigation into the death of 23-year-old Faizan, who was allegedly beaten up and forced to sing the National Anthem by some policemen during the Delhi Riots of February 2020. Full Story

1. In the case of The Branch Manager OSL Hyundai vs Ruparanjan Das and Ors, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed a National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order which had held that damage to the car on account of rainwater during floods is covered by warranty. Full Story

2. The Gujarat High Court, while hearing the case of Bharatbhai Thobhanbhai Koyani vs Jayendrasinh Udesinh Gohil, took serious note of a plea seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against a police officer for allegedly detaining an advocate due to a previous grudge. Full Story

3. In the case of Rohit Kumar vs State of UT Chandigarh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently took note of the legal vacuum to govern live-in relationships and sought the Central government’s response on measures being taken to prevent adolescents with impressionable minds from living together. Full Story

4. In the case of CBI vs Sanjay Gupta & Ors, the Delhi court remanded former National Stock Exchange (NSE) head Chitra Ramkrishna to judicial custody for 14 days in connection with the NSE co-location scam. Full Story

1. The Allahabad High Court has restored a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a direction to hand over Mathura’s Shahi Masjid, which stands adjacent to Sri Krishna Temple, to Hindus. A Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prakash Padia restored the petition that had been dismissed in default on January 19, 2021. Full Story

2. In the case of Shobha vs the Chairman, Vitthalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, the Supreme Court on Friday held that the liability under the Employees Compensation Act of 1923 to pay the compensation and the interest on the same would arise from the date on which the deceased died and not from the date of the order of compensation by the commissioner. Full Story

3. The name of Justice Akil Kureshi will go down in history as the centre-piece around which discussions on supersession and non-elevation of judges, as well as the opacity of the collegium system, will take place. It is a shame that he will be remembered most because of this, given how highly his peers at the Bar and the Bench speak of his integrity and competence as a judge. Full Story

4. In the case of Sudip Sen & Ors. vs State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court recently set aside the conviction of five men on charges of gang rape and attempt to rape and instead found them guilty of assaulting a woman with intent to outrage her modesty under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code! Full Story

1. In the case of SK Nausad Rahaman vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that while crafting policy, the state cannot be oblivious (not aware of or concerned about what is happening around) to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life, which is a facet of Article 21. However, a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath emphasised that an employee has no fundamental right to posting or transfer. Still, the state should consider ‘family life‘ while crafting policy. Full Story

2. The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in the case of Mayavathi and Anr. vs State of Karnataka and Anr, filed against former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati, and BSP All India General Secretary, Sathish Chandra Mishra in a case registered against them for assault on public servant. Full Story

3. In the case of Manaank Mudaliar vs State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a petitioner accused of murdering his father on the ground that he suffers from schizophrenia with cannabis use disorder and that the investigation in the case is completed. Full Story

4. State Information Commissioner (SIC) Rahul Singh observed that most District Collector’s Offices in Madhya Pradesh have not been making proactive disclosures under section 4 (obligations of public authorities) of the Act. Therefore, the Madhya Pradesh Information Commissioner recently directed the offices of all the state’s District Collectors to have and comply with a 17-point manual regarding mandatory disclosures as part of the Right to Information Act. Full Story

1. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramji Lal Sharma and Another, the Supreme Court observed that in a murder case, once it is established and proved that all the accused gathered at the crime scene with a shared intention to kill, it is immaterial that some of them had not used any weapon to injure the victim. Full Story

2. Supreme Court, in the case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. vs Union of India, issued notice to the central government on the appeal filed by Malayalam news channel “Media One” challenging the central government’s decision to revoke the broadcasting license of the channel on the ground of national security. Full Story

3. In the case of Ashlesh Biradar vs State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court stayed the order passed by the state government to shut down internet services in seven districts of West Bengal between March 7 and March 16. The state took the decision to prevent mass cheating in the upcoming State board exams. It sought to suspend internet services in Malda, Murshidabad, Uttar Dinajpur, Coochbehar, Jalpaiguri, Birbhum, and Darjeeling. Full Story

4. In the case of Ankit vs the State of Haryana, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently observed that misplaced sympathy while sentencing the accused for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) would defeat the objective and purpose of the law. Full Story

1. In the case of Janak Vyas vs State of Maharashtra & Ors, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed two public interest litigation (PILs) petitions filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Girish Mahajan and citizen Janak Vyas challenging rules for the election of speaker and deputy speaker of Maharashtra Assembly. Full Story

2. A Sessions Court in Mumbai rejected two applications filed by Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut seeking transfer of proceedings between her and lyricist Javed Akhtar from the Andheri Magistrate to another Magistrate. Full Story

3. In the case of Vijaya Mahantesh Mulemane vs State of Karnataka and Ors, the Karnataka High Court recently permitted a woman to retain custody of her child despite orders of a Canadian court that granted custody to the father. However, a Division Bench of Justices Alok Aradhe and S Vishwajith Shetty granted the father visitation rights and directed that he will be permitted to contact the child and be informed of her development. Full Story

4. In the case of Sharjeel Imam vs The State of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on the bail plea of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam in cases related to the Delhi Riots of February 2020. Full Story

1. In the case of Bhagwati Transformer Corp. and Ors vs Government of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court refused to put a stay on the order of the Delhi Government through which it had prohibited any discount or rebate on the sale of liquor in the national capital. Full Story

2. The Court was hearing a matter concerning an arbitrator’s fee dispute between Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and Afcons during which the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana expressed the need for changes in the system of arbitration in India, specifically in the area of arbitrators‘ fees. Full Story

3. In the case of Bank of Baroda vs M/s. Karwa Trading Company and Anr., the Supreme Court has held that a borrower cannot redeem the mortgaged property put for public auction by the bank by only paying the reserve price for the auction or by paying the highest bid amount. Full Story

4. In the case of Chiranjeevi M. Kulkarni vs Karnataka State Law University, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Law University to conduct offline examinations for students of 3 years LLB Course, studying in the 2nd and 4th semester, twice – once from March 7 onwards and next from May 16 onwards. Full Story

1. Gujarat High Court heard a plea by the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association (GHCAA) challenging the demand notices issued to a large number of its member. The court ordered that no coercive action should be taken against lawyers in relation to notices issued to them by the Central Goods and Service Tax Department (CGST Department) demanding payment of service tax/GST. Full Story

2. In the case of Sushil Bhatt vs Moon Beverages Ltd. & Ors., the National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently held two bottling businesses in Uttar Pradesh responsible for the products of Coca Cola and PepsiCo, to pay a total of about ₹25 crores as environmental compensation for illegal extraction of groundwater. Full Story

3. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the case of Mujeeb Ur Rehman vs Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, seeking the adoption of virtual hearings as a norm in courts across the capital. The Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL and informed the petitioner that the issue is being looked at on the administrative side. Full Story

4. In the case of Savina Crasto vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Bombay High Court directed Ola, Uber, and other cab aggregators to apply for a license from the Maharashtra government under the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 and Motor Vehicle Aggregators Guidelines of 2020 before March 16 this year. Full Story

1. In the case of Asianet Digital Network (P) Ltd. vs Star India Private Limited, allegations have been raised by Asianet Digital Network on Star India Private Limited and its subsidiaries for abuse of dominant market position. Therefore, in relation to the allegations, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) last week ordered the Director-General (DG) to carry out an investigation into Star India Private Limited and its subsidiaries. After the investigation, members Ashok Kumar Gupta, Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi found prima facie violations of the provisions of the Competition Act and asked the DG to submit an investigation report within 60 days. Full Story

2. While hearing a plea for bail under POCSO Act, the Karnataka High Court has directed that the investigation officer or the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) must inform a minor survivor’s parents, caregiver, or guardian and lawyer (if appointed), if the accused files for bail or if there is any other application by the accused or the prosecution in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Full Story

3. Supreme Court was hearing the special leave plea filed by a wife who categorically denied suffering from paranoid schizophrenia as alleged by her husband and stayed a judgment of the Kerala High Court, which had granted divorce on the ground of mental cruelty after the wife refused to get medical treatment for an alleged mental illness. Full Story

4. In the case of X vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, the Delhi High Court cancelled the bail of a man accused of raping a mentally-challenged 37-year-old woman suffering from a bipolar mental disorder, episodic mania and psychotic features. Full Story

1. Breaking: Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi has resigned from the post of Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India. Lekhi, who was appointed to the post in March 2018, has not given any reason for his resignation in the letter. In a letter addressed to the Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, Lekhi has only mentioned that he is tendering his resignation from the post of ASG with immediate effect. Full Story

2. While hearing the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India and Ors, a Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna asked Upadhyay, who is also a BJP leader, how many such petitions he has kept ready to be filed; as he has already filed many Public Interest Litigations (PILs) for the ban of liquor. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court has expressed shock at the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting protection from arrest to former Punjab Director General of Police (DGP) Sumedh Singh Saini in cases pending against him or likely to be registered against him in the future. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana said that the order was unprecedented and the court wanted to know how protection can be granted for future cases which are not registered yet. Full Story

4. In the case of Loop Telecom and Trading Limited vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that if a party to a contract was equally or more responsible for any illegality concerning the defendant, then the claim of restitution will fail. A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath further added that in such cases, claims for restitution under section 65 of the Indian Contract Act will fail, even though the illegality has to be determined on a case-to-case basis. Full Story

1. A sessions court in Mumbai, while hearing a domestic violence case, clarified that a domestic violence complaint can also be filed against the relatives of the victim who do not live with the survivor in the same house. The Additional Sessions Judge, UM Padwad, further stated that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is not limited to reliefs only against those who reside with the survivor. Full Story

2. In the case of Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the State government to construct and develop Amaravati as the capital city and capital region of the Andhra Pradesh State within the next six months. The full bench of the court also held that the legislature had no legislative power to pass any law for a change of capital, bifurcating or dividing the capital city. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court of India has invited tenders from agencies for providing services of monkey scarers to be deployed at residential bungalows of judges of the top court. A notice inviting tender has been published on the website of the Supreme Court. Full Story

4. The matter related to the evacuation of Indians stuck in Ukraine was kept before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana by Senior Counsel AM Dar. Furthermore, the Supreme Court mused how it could give directions to stop the war and seek the assistance of Attorney General KK Venugopal in the concerned matter. Full Story

1. In the case of Shivanand vs Basavva, the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that maintenance awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cannot be enhanced under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice M Nagaprasanna further added that the maintenance awarded under section 125 of CrPC can be enhanced under section 127 of CrPC but not an award under the Domestic Violence Act. Full Story

2. The Gujarat High Court, while hearing an appeal against an order of an Additional District Judge in the case of Ayeshaben vs Huriben Ismail Ali, stressed on the importance of courts providing grounds and reasons for an order while stating that proper reasoning is the heartbeat of court orders. Full Story

3. In the case of Dhondiba Anna Jadhav and Anr vs the State of Karnataka, the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court recently ruled that a complaint regarding sex-selection of foetus under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act can be made only by the ‘appropriate authority’ under the Act. Full Story

4. In the case of Saratha vs The Member Secretary, the Madras High Court strongly recommended the State government to provide a specific percentage of separate reservation for the Third Gender (TG) or transgender persons in matters of future public employment. Justice MS Ramesh further added that State’s decision to combine transgender persons who identified as females, with the 30% vacancies reserved for women candidates, without extending a special reservation for the TGs, is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and the direction contained in Supreme Court’s NALSA judgment. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Nandu Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that motive is of greater importance in a criminal case. In the absence of motive in the case depending on circumstantial evidence, it weighs the case in favour of the accused. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Tulesh Kumar Sahu vs the State of Chattisgarh held that merely because the stolen article has been recovered from the accused, he cannot be convicted solely on the basis of that. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Lingeswaran vs Thirunagalingam held that extension of the limitation period on equitable grounds is not feasible. The statutory provision may cause hardship to the party, but the court does not have any option in this regard. Full Story

4. The Gujarat High Court in Ayeshaben Ahmed Adam Alinatha vs Huriben Ismail held that an order of court must be a ‘speaking order’. The reasoning is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It also avoids uncertainty in the cause of justice. Full Story

• February 2022 Law News
• January 2022 Law News
• December 2021 Law News
• November 2021 Law News
• October 2021 Law News
• September 2021 Law News
• August 2021 Law News
• July 2021 Law News
• June 2021 Law News
• May 2021 Law News
• April 2021 Law News
• March 2021 Law News
• February 2021 Law News
• January 2021 Law News
• December 2020 Law News

March 2022 – Law News for Students and Advocates
WritingLaw

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS

1. In the case of Ankan Tilak Paul vs State of Tripura and ors., a bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mohanty and Justice SG Chattopadhyay of Tripura High Court directed the Agartala Municipal Corporation (AMC) to not allow the sale of meat products in public places and streets. Full Story

2. The Delhi Court in State vs Baby rejected the bail plea of a 55-year-old woman accused of the assault of a 20-year-old woman who was smeared with black ink and paraded in broad daylight in the national capital. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra of Karkardooma court further stated that the “shameful” incident occurred in a busy residential area, yet nobody came forward to rescue the victim, which is a “black spot” on our society. Full Story

3. On a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) filed by young lawyers Ajit Deshpande, Akshay Desai, and others seeking a stipend of ₹5,000 per month, the Bombay High Court has issued notice to the Bar Council of Maharashtra. The plea stated that junior lawyers have been severely affected economically by the COVID-19 pandemic and the accompanying lockdown. Full Story

4. The case of Jai Nrain vs the State of Punjab arose when a married woman and a man who were living together in a live-in relationship voluntarily were facing threats from the family of women. The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently granted police protection to a married woman and her live-in partner, stating that it was its fundamental duty to guard their lives. Justice Anoop Chitkara explained that every person in India had an inherent fundamental right to life flowing from Article 21, which the State was bound to protect. Full Story

5. Mumbai special court has sentenced a 33-year-old man to three years of rigorous imprisonment after finding him guilty of molesting a minor girl and her visually impaired aunt on a local train in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Mohsin Allauddin Chougule. The court further observed that unwelcome, inappropriate touch by the male accused in the journey via public transport is a very common sexual assault, but almost all such assaults go unreported. Full Story

1. A case has been filed against actor-filmmaker Mahesh Manjrekar and others under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) in relation to their film “Varan Bhaat Loncha Kon Nay Koncha”, reportedly containing sexually explicit content involving children in the Bombay High Court. The court has denied grand protection to the respondents under this case. Full Story

2. The petition, Kishor Sohoni in the case of Kishor Ramesh Sohoni vs Union of India & Ors., had deposited the amount authorised by the court, in cash, with the police station, pursuant to court orders, prior to demonetisation. The Bombay High Court recently directed the Reserve Bank of India to replace a man’s demonetised notes worth Rs 1.6 lakh with new and valid currency notes. Full Story

3. In the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of Indian and Ors., a public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the Delhi government to prohibit the production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs in the national capital. Full Story

4. In the case of Hemalatha vs Venkatesh, the Karnataka High Court has held that the properties given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage of the daughter will be included at the time of partition and also when the daughter files suit for partition. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Shri Babuji Rawji Shah vs S.Hussain held that mere hurting of sensibility is not defamation if by that defamation the character or credit of a person does not lessen. Full Story

2. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harbhajan Sadhu vs the State of Punjab held that to establish an offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 of IPC, a suicide note with the name of the accused is not sufficient. Full Story

3. The Calcutta High Court in Ashoke Ghosh vs State of West Bengal held that non-examination of minor who is in the custody of the accused does not adversely affect the prosecution’s case. Naturally, the child is prone to tutoring and is unsafe for the prosecution to choose him as a witness. Full Story

4. The Allahabad High Court in Pratiksha Singh and Another vs the State of UP held that a major person has the right to live with anyone of his choice. If the age of the married boy is not above 21 years, it will not make the marriage void. Full Story

1. In the case of Dr Vikram Sampath v Dr Audrey Truschke and Ors, the single judge bench of Delhi High Court has ordered Twitter to take down the five tweets posted by historian Audrey Truschke against historian Vikram Sampath in which Truschke had alleged plagiarism by Sampath in relation to his works on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Full Story

2. An advocate, Shakti Khaitan wrote a letter to the Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava of the Calcutta High Court stating that the lawyers wearing headgear in courts goes against the Bar Council of India Rules. The letter was seeking directions on the administrative side banning lawyers from wearing headgear, veils or other articles of faith in the premises of the High Court. Full Story

3. In the case of Manual vs the State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court has ruled that the admin of a WhatsApp group cannot be held vicariously liable if a member of the group posts objectionable content in the group. The court also recalled that it is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that mens rea must be an ingredient of an offence, and both the act and intent must be present in order to constitute a crime. Full Story

4. In the case of Sankar Mondal v State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court observed that however genuine the grievance may be, but the candidate cannot approach for redressal in a recruitment process. The court further said that the appellant waiting for seven long years for getting an appointment letter and then filing an OA before the State Administrative Tribunal was itself a ground to non-suit the appellant. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Coorg vs Regional Provident Fund Organization held that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing a penalty for breaching civil obligations. Full Story

2. The Gujarat High Court in J. vs the State of Gujarat directed the Director-General of Police to ensure that all the police stations must have a panel of lawyers who can aid the victims of sexual assault. They must get proper guidance for legal representation. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Gayatri Prasad Prajapati vs State of Uttar Pradesh held that a writ petition filed under Article 32 to quash criminal proceedings cannot be entertained by the court. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in Mohd. Ajazur Rahman vs Union of India and Ors. held that “Law is nothing but the desire of the people. And legislature being the law-making body represents that desire. Legislature cannot be forced to bring in force the enacted law. It is in their (parliament’s) wisdom to bring in force the enacted law. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in X (minor) vs State of Jharkhand and Anr. held that a love affair between the minor victim and accused is not a relevant ground for getting bail. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Shrikant G. Mantri vs Punjab National Bank held that pure business-to-business disputes cannot be called out as consumer disputes. To come within the meaning of consumer, services availed should be exclusive to earn his livelihood by self-employment. Full Story

3. The Bombay High Court in Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan vs the State of Maharashtra held that confession made to a stranger cannot be accepted. Extra-judicial confession made to a stranger cannot be the basis of conviction. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. vs SMS Asia Private Limited held that where the complainant is a company, an authorised employee can represent the company on its behalf. Filing by a company or on its behalf is sufficient for the court to take cognizance. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Authority For Clarification And Advance Ruling vs Aakavi Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. held that when the literal interpretation of a provision results in what the legislature never intended, then the court must depart from the plain language and modify it to achieve the intention of the legislature. Full Story

2. A plea for enforcement of fundamental duties has been filed in Durga Dutt vs UOI, in which the Supreme Court said that every citizen must learn to respect the institutions of the country. All people must comply with certain basic norms of democratic conduct and behaviour. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar vs Automotive Research Association of India held that mere presence of some public function or duty on a body does not make it fall under the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Full Story

4. The CBI Court in Doranda Treasury Case related to fodder scam of Rs. 139 crores has sentenced Lalu Yadav, the former Union Minister and Chief Minister of Bihar, to five years imprisonment and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 60 lakhs. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Hotel Priya A Proprietorship vs the State of Maharashtra held that imposing a gender cap on the number of men and women who can perform in licensed orchestras and bars is unconstitutional. The court said that in the guise of protection, it restricts women’s choice. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd vs BP PLC and Others held that if the plaintiff has not specifically claimed for damages in the plea instead of specific performance, then the court shall not grant compensation. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in K. Kumara Gupta vs Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple held that the sale under the public auction cannot be set aside on the ground that some offer was made by a third party subsequently. The highest offer received in the auction is accepted as a fair value. Full Story

4. The Calcutta High Court in Manick Sardar vs State of West Bengal held that mere penetration is sufficient to prove the offence of rape. The marks or injuries on the victim’s body is not necessarily required to prove the offence of rape. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Babu Venkatesh vs the State of Karnataka held that if the complaint is not supported by an affidavit, then the magistrate cannot entertain an application under section 156(3) of the CrPC. The necessity of an affidavit is to make the person, making the application, conscious (aware) and to prevent him from making a false affidavit. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Sharafat Ali vs the State of Uttar Pradesh held that the previous criminal history of the accused, his conduct, and behaviour in jail are all relevant in considering his application of pre-mature release. Full Story

3. The Rajasthan High Court in Vijay Narayan Sharma vs the State of Rajasthan held that judicial review is generally not allowed in administrative matters unless there is any violation of laws or rules in the act of authorities or any malafide action is seen at their side. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in T. Takano vs Securities and Exchange Board of India held that quasi-judicial authorities while concluding their decision, must disclose the material basis on which the authority relied for adjudication. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Oil Field Employees Association and Ors. held that the workers of the union who were not part of the settlement entered into between the Majority Union and the employer are not bound by the same. Full Story
2. The Gujarat High Court in Rajeshbhai Jesingbhai Dayara vs the State of Gujarat held that to prosecute a person under SC/ST Act, 1989, the accused must know the caste of the victim that such person belongs to scheduled caste or tribe. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in BW Buisnessworld Media Ltd. vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. held that if a person who is himself ineligible to be an arbitrator, appoints an arbitrator as per section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, then such appointment is void ab initio. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. held that High Courts while passing any orders, must refrain from the observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy. General observations must be avoided, which are not warranted in the case. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Manoj vs the State of Haryana held that if a plea of juvenility has to be raised, then it should be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. The provisions are to be construed liberally but not to a person who approaches the court untruthfully. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Satye Singh vs the State of Uttarakhand held that section 106 of the Evidence Act is not to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused. Full Story

3. The Chhattisgarh High Court in Nand Kumar Verma vs State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. held that no FIR (First Information Report) can be lodged under section 195 of CrPC based on a private complaint for forging of documents or conspiracy committed before the court. Full Story

4. The Jharkhand High Court in Priyanka Devi vs Satish Kumar held that section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act is akin to section 96(3) of the CPC, which says that no appeal can be made against a decree passed with the consent of parties. And section 19(2) also covers orders passed by the court along with the decree. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Debananda Tamuli vs Smt. Kakumoni Kataky held that where there is no reasonable ground on the part of the wife to stay away from the matrimonial home, it creates a ground of desertion and for dissolution of marriage. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in the State of Kerala vs Laxmi Vasanth held that section 30(5) of the Partnership Act shall not be applied to a minor who was not a partner when he attained majority. The person shall not be liable for any dues when he was a partner being a minor. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in B.R. Patil vs Tulsa Y Sawkar held that Order 2, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code does not compel a plaintiff to join two or more causes of action in a single suit but only permits to do the same. Full Story

4. Telangana High Court in Mandala Murali vs State of Andhra Pradesh held that if the statement given in the dying declaration is true and voluntary, then it can be the sole basis of conviction. The statement must inspire the full confidence of the court. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Prakash Corporates vs Dee Vee Projects Limited held that its suo motu power to extend the limitation period applies in relation to the period prescribed for filing a written statement in commercial suits. Full Story

2. The Delhi High Court in Amit vs State and Ors. held that rape is a barbaric crime against the woman’s body and soul of the society. It is a crime against the dignity of a woman, and dignity is one of the basic precepts of equality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Full Story

3. The Kerala High Court in Beena M.S vs Shino G. Babu held that if one of the spouses refuses to give divorce on account of mutual consent knowing the reason and the fact that marriage has failed, then it amounts to cruelty with the other spouse. Full Story

4. Former Bihar Chief Minister and RJD president Lalu Prasad has been convicted in four out of five cases related to a multi-crore (950 crores) fodder scam that took place in the animal husbandry department when he was the Chief Minister. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in B. Boraiah Rep. Thr. Lrs. vs M.G. Thirthaprasad & Ors. held that when the judgment/decree of the trial court merges with the judgment of the High Court, then the application for correction in decree can be filed only in the High Court where the decree was affirmed. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Bimal Chandra Ghosh vs the State of Tripura held that the court cannot give any credence to the compromise entered between parties after the confirmation of conviction by the High Court. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs the State of UP held that there must be supporting material for the allegations written in FIR. The court must quash proceedings sparingly in rarest cases, but there has to be something to proceed. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Ravindra vs Union of India held that in substitution of death sentence, imprisonment for life without any remission till the last breath of accused can be given. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in R. Valli vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. held that for determination of motor accident compensation, the age of the deceased should be the basis. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Jaina Construction Company vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. held that the insurance company cannot repudiate (reject) a claim only on the ground that the company was intimated with little delay about the occurrence of the theft. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in Mohd. Afsar vs State held that the testimony given by the father of the prosecutrix regarding the age of the victim cannot be used to rebut or rebuke the documentary evidence of the age of the prosecutrix. Full Story

4. Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, judge of Bombay High Court, has resigned from office. She delivered two judgments relating to child abuse which led to controversies later on. Due to this, the collegium revoked their recommendation for making her permanent judge. Full Story

1. The Bombay High Court in the State of Maharashtra vs Gulab Dattu Patil and Ors. held that if a High Court reverses the trial court finding, then it must re-evaluate every factual finding of the trial court with due care and caution. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Krishna Modi held that to get a pension under the freedom fighters pension scheme, the person must fulfil the conditions required for the same. Having been qualified for State Government would not make a person entitled under the Central Government scheme. Full Story

3. A PIL was filed before Madras High Court by Rangarajan Narasimhan for mandating the customary dress code for entry inside the temple complexes. Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari said that it is difficult to see somebody is standing for Hijab and some for Dhotis inside the temple. The country is secular; there is an effort to divide the country by religion. Full Story

4. The Kerala High Court in Peggy Fen vs Central Board of Film Certification and Ors. held that lawyers should act as a mouthpiece of the judicial system and only engage in fair criticism of a judgment. Criticism of a judgment without even reading it is not acceptable, but fair criticism is always acceptable. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Pappu vs State of Uttar Pradesh held that for awarding a death sentence to the accused, the court must consider that apart from giving a death sentence, any other option of punishment is foreclosed. The abhorrent nature of the crime alone cannot be the decisive factor to award a death sentence to the accused. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Ajit Singh vs Padma Bhandari said that the fruits of the decree cannot be realised unless it gets executed. Where the execution of the decree itself becomes the second round of litigation, then it takes ages for the decree-holder to realise its fruits. Full Story

3. In Surya Developers vs N. Sailesh Prasad, the Supreme Court held that a separate suit for challenging consent decree is not maintainable. It was further observed that an agreement or compromise which is void or voidable shall not be deemed to be lawful. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in R. Muthukumar vs Chairman and Managing Director said that there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. A principle axiomatic in this country’s constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality, added court. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs the State of Bihar said that section 498A of IPC was incorporated to prevent cruelty against women. Prosecuting relatives of husband’s on general allegations is an abuse of the process of law. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar and Anr. vs Post Master General And Ors. held that if an employee of a post office has committed any wrongful act or fraud during employment, then the post office shall be vicariously liable for the wrongful actions of an employee. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs State Wakf Board said that whether the property comes under Wakf or not shall be determined by the court only after conducting an inquiry under section 40 of the Wakf Act. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Nawabuddin vs the State of Uttarakhand held that a person who commits an offence under POCSO Act must not at all be treated leniently by the courts. Children are sensitive and precious human resources. Suitable punishment to the accused conveys a message to society of being punished after committing an offence against children. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Rahul Modi held that not taking cognizance by the court before the expiry of the statutory period does not give the right to the accused to seek default bail despite when a charge sheet has already been filed. The right of default bail arises when the charge sheet has not been filed before the statutory period. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Rajesh Yadav vs the State of UP held that the trial courts shall make all possible efforts to do the chief and cross-examination of private witnesses on the same day. The interval between the chief and cross-examination gives sufficient time to the defense for winning. Full Story

3. The Gujarat High Court in Rasidaben w/o Sidikbhai Daudbhai vs the State of Gujarat held that while determining the citizenship of a person, the principles of natural and fair justice are ignored, then the judicial intervention by court becomes necessary. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Yes Bank Limited vs 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. held that the consumer complaints filed in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot be transferred to the High Court. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in the State of Uttarakhand vs Sachendra Singh Rawat said that intention to cause death which is an ingredient under section 302 of IPC, can be gathered from circumstances like nature of the weapon, what part the blow was aimed, injury, whether the act was premeditated or not and so on. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in the State of Manipur vs Surajkumar Okram held that the law which is passed by the legislature is good and valid till it is declared unconstitutional by the competent court or the law gets repealed. Full Story

3. The Orissa High Court in Himansu Sekhar Srichandan vs Sudhir Ranjan Patra held that setting aside of ex parte decree does not mean that defendant will be restored to its position that was before the date of hearing of the suit. He will only be allowed to participate in proceedings thereon. He won’t be allowed to file a written statement. Full Story

4. The Calcutta High Court in Anubrata Mondal vs Union of India held that the territorial limitations which are prescribed under section 160 of CrPC are also applicable to investigations done by CBI. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Ajanta LLP vs Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd held that if the mistake is patent (that is on face visible), then only a consent decree can be altered or modified and otherwise not. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar vs the State of Haryana held that seeking relief of suspension of execution of sentence and to be released on bail is the statutory right of the appellant. And on the same, the court cannot impose a time bar on the convict. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Central Industrial Security Force vs HC (GD) Om Prakash held that if there is a case of premature retirement then it shall be allowed and granted on the basis of entire service records. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in Kavita Tushir vs Pushpraj Dalal held that plaint can be rejected as a whole or not. There cannot be a partial or piecemeal rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs Yunus held that the award, which is passed by the Lok Adalat, is not a compromise decree. The purport of the law giver is only to confer it with enforceability in like manner as if it were a decree. Thus, the court said the legal fiction that the Award is to be treated as a decree goes no further. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in RK Singh vs General Manager held that a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a review order alone. The principle of not entertaining a Special Leave Petition against an order rejecting the review petition when the main judgment is not under challenge has become a presidential principle. Full Story

3. The Calcutta High Court in Supratik Ghosh vs State of West Bengal and Anr. held that section 245 of CrPC does not allow the Magistrate to discharge the accused due to the absence of the complainant without even considering the evidence already adduced by the complainant witnesses in court. Full Story

4. The Kerala High Court in K. Jayarajan and Ors. vs Sambasivan held that the grounds available to the party to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC, won’t be available in a petition filed under section 47 of the Code. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in State of Sikkim vs Jasbir Singh said that the intention of the Army Act is not to give protection to army personnel by awarding lesser punishments even for serious offences. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Jogi Ram vs Suresh Kumar said that a limited estate given to the wife can be her absolute property under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act if the limited estate was given for her maintenance. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in the State of Manipur & Ors. vs Surjakumar Okram & Ors held that by using a saving clause, the legislature cannot give life to legislation. If a law is unconstitutional, then it is non est for all purposes. Full Story

4. The Calcutta High Court in Lakshi Ram Hembram @ Laxmiram Hembram vs State of West Bengal held that the testimony of sole eye witness cannot be disregarded merely because it does not corroborate with the evidence given by other co-accused persons. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs Veerpal held that if the court is satisfied with the dying declaration to be true and made voluntarily, then it can be the basis of sole conviction without corroboration. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Pappu Tiwary vs the State of Jharkhand held that if the accused wishes to take Plea of Alibi, the burden of proving the same is heavy on him. It has to be proved with certainty, excluding his presence from the place of occurrence of crime. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Pappu Tiwary vs the State of Jharkhand said that while proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must not find ‘nitpick’ to find an excuse to obtain an acquittal. Leaving any loophole will always benefit the prosecution. Full Story

4. The Gujarat High Court in Maheshsinh Babusinh Zala vs the State of Gujarat said that every offence committed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable in nature, and if the parties wish to settle the matter amicably, then it is permitted. Full Story

• January 2022 Law News
• December 2021 Law News
• November 2021 Law News
• October 2021 Law News
• September 2021 Law News
• August 2021 Law News
• July 2021 Law News
• June 2021 Law News
• May 2021 Law News
• April 2021 Law News
• March 2021 Law News
• February 2021 Law News
• January 2021 Law News
• December 2020 Law News

February 2022 – Law News for Students and Advocates
WritingLaw

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS

1. The Supreme Court in Amar Nath vs Gian Chand held that a holder of power of attorney can sell and get the property registered by merely producing a copy of the power of attorney. There is no need for the original document mandatorily. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Shiv Developers Through Its Partner Sunilbhai Somabhai Ajmeri vs Aksharay Developers said that the bar to file a suit by an unregistered firm under section 69 clause 2 of the Partnership Act won’t be attracted if the contract in question was not related to the course of its business dealings. Full Story

3. The Karnataka High Court in Ramesh vs State held that if the accused has already appeared before the trial court either personally or through a lawyer, then he cannot apply for anticipatory bail. Full Story

4. The Collegium of the Supreme Court has recommended seven lawyers to be appointed as High Court judges of Andhra Pradesh. The lawyers who have been recommended are:

1. Konakanti Sreenivasa Reddy
2. Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
3. Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
4. Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
5. Satti Subba Reddy
6. Ravi Cheemalapati
7. Vaddiboyana Sujatha. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow vs The Sub-Divisional Officer/The Registrar of Public Trusts And Anr. held that the institutional agencies which are self-governed such as public trusts cannot be dictated in taking decisions. The autonomy in decision making cannot be overarched by the state. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Griesheim GmbH (Now Called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) vs Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. held that with the conjoint reading of sections 2(4) and 44A of Civil Procedure Code, High Courts having original civil jurisdiction can also execute the decree passed by a foreign court. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre vs the State of Maharashtra held that the reason for depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of movement throughout the territories of India (also known as the order of externment) must stand the test of reasonableness. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta held that the M. Nagaraj judgment passed by the court in 2006 will only have a prospective (happen in the future) effect. If the judgment would be applicable retrospectively (with effect from a date in the past) then it would affect the interests of others in the reservation in promotion. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Ashish Shelar And Ors. vs the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr said that disorderly conduct in the house will not be avoided. But if any disorderly conduct takes place, then the action taken must be constitutional, legal and rational. Suspension beyond the remainder of the ongoing session is worse than expulsion. The court quashed the suspension of 12 BJP MLAs from the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for one year. Full Story

2. The Calcutta High Court in Dr Nazrul Islam vs Basudeb Banerjee & Ors said that to prosecute a public servant and before initiating investigation against him under section 156(3) of CrPC, it is necessary to obtain prior sanction of the appropriate government. Full Story

3. The Karnataka High Court in Srinivas Murthy H.N. vs the State of Karnataka held that if a person is a government employee, then it does not become a ground for his bail where he is alleged under a serious offence of rape. Full Story

4. The Telangana High Court in Sri. Mettu Krishna Reddy vs the State of Telangana held that if a complainant does not appear, then using power given under section 256 of CrPC, the court can acquit the accused. But such power must be used judiciously by the court. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar vs the State of Bihar said that while deciding and considering the bail application of the accused, the court must see the gravity and nature of the offence committed. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Rehana Begum vs State of Assam & Anr said that to quash a complaint regarding bigamy (marrying someone while already married to another person) under sections 494/495 of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court can rely on findings of the Family Court concerning previous marriage. Full Story

3. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Narendra Singh vs the State of Haryana held that consent given by a girl for a sexual act in the past does not apply to future occasions. The consent given for one instance won’t be applicable to future meetings or occasions. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. vs Sourabh Jinal & Ors held that if the defendant wishes to file documents in the court, then he may do so along with the filing of a written statement. If he delays in submitting documents, then permission or leave of the court is required. Full Story

Courts closed due to national holiday.

1. The Jharkhand High Court in Phoda Devi and Ors vs Ganesh Mahto held that to claim adverse possession of the immovable property, it is necessary for the party to first acknowledge the title of the party against whom it is being claimed. Full Story

2. The Karnataka High Court in Venkatesh vs the State of Karnataka held that if a person breaches the promise to marry, then it is not covered under the offence of cheating in the Indian Penal Code. Full Story

3. The Karnataka High Court in Lalitha vs the State of Karnataka held that if the victim of rape is below the age of 16 years, then she has to be heard before passing any bail order for the accused. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Courts in Juhi Chawla vs Science and Engineering Research Board said that actor Juhi Chawla is a popular celebrity, and if she does social work, then her cost/fine imposed of Rs 20 Lakhs would be reduced to Rs 2 Lakhs. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Keshav vs Gian Chand held that when any person obtains any benefit from another, the court would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to gift to discharge the burden of proving that he exerted no influence to obtain the document. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Union of India held that admission (admitting any fact) by a lawyer as to the matter of law or legal conclusions does not bind the court nor the client. Full Story

3. The Karnataka High Court in Gaurav Raj Jain vs the State of Karnataka held that in the absence of any order passed by the court, the custody of a minor daughter with the mother cannot be held to be unlawful. Full Story

4. The Karnataka High Court in Virendra Khanna vs the State of Karnataka held that if further investigation is to be conducted under section 173(8) of CrPC, then it must relate to the incident of the alleged crime. The crime for which the charge sheet has already been filed. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in The Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Union of India and others held that in the conflict between a statement in an advertisement and service regulations, the latter shall prevail. Regulations framed by statutory authorities have the force of enacted law. Full Story

2. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurmail Singh vs the State of Punjab held that there can be no second FIR on the same incident in which an FIR has already been lodged. If it is filed then it is an abuse of the process of law. Full Story

3. The Bombay High Court in Harvinder Kaur Vishakha Singh vs Tarvinder Singh K Singh directed the employer to give compensation to his employee (truck driver) for putting him in extreme stress and strain which resulted in his demise. As per facts, he was driving long distances continuously for 18 days. Full Story

4. The Bombay High Court in Alice Realities Pvt Ltd vs the State of Maharashtra held that transfer of tenancy does not amount to the creation of new tenancy. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank of India held that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of a civil suit in the Civil Court. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank of India held that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is limited under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. Full Story

3. Senior Advocate Rebecca John and amicus curiae in the RIT Foundation vs UOI and Others where the exception to section 375 IPC is challenged, she said that expectation of sexual relations in a marriage cannot lead to husband having forceful sex with wife. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) vs Ponnusamy held that daughter has a right to inherit the self-acquired property or share in the partition of a coparcenary property of her Hindu father dying intestate (not having made a will before one dies). Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) vs Ponnusamy said that if a female Hindu dies intestate (not having made a will before one dies) without leaving any issue (heir), then the property inherited by her from her father or mother would go to the heirs of her father whereas the property inherited from her husband or father in law would go to the heirs of the husband. Full Story

Related: Procedure for the Succession of Property of Female Hindu

2. The Supreme Court in Krishan Lal & Ors. vs Vini Mahajan Secretary & Anr. held that the High Court cannot issue direction to the state to form a new policy. The matter needs to be analysed on its own merits by the law. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Reinassance Hotel Holdings vs B. Vijaya Sai held that while interpreting the provisions of a statute, the textual interpretation should be matched with the contextual one. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank And Ors. vs Om Prakash Lal Srivastava held that it is not necessary to call a handwriting expert in departmental proceedings. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs the State of Haryana said that in the proceedings of judicial review, the courts are concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Atlanta Limited vs Union of India held that when the appellate court exercises power under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, then it need not re-appreciate the evidence or examine the sufficiency of the evidence. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in State by NCB Bengaluru vs Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta held that confessional statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Full Story

4. While speaking at the E-Inaugration of Justice Clock and E-Court Fee System for HC of Gujarat, Justice Chandrachud said that technology is opening us up to the world outside. It is bringing focus on judges. The use of AI technology has helped in improving productivity. Technology must be understood as the facilitator of change, but the driver of change has been and must be the human mind. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in BL Kashyap and Sons Ltd. vs JMS Steels and Power Corporation said that the grant of leave to defend under Order 37, Rule 3 is an ordinary rule and denial to leave to defend is an exception. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Seethakathi Trust Madras vs Krishnaveni held that a decree for obtaining specific performance of decree cannot be obtained behind the back of a bonafide purchaser, especially when the transaction has taken place before the institution of the suit for specific performance. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in Sunder Singh Bhati vs the State held that gravity of the offence cannot be the only criteria for denying bail to a person accused. A mere vague belief that the accused may thwart the investigation cannot be a ground to prolong the incarceration of the accused. Full Story

4. The Delhi Court in State vs Krishan Jambad said that a man cannot be given the protection of mental illness for killing his daughter and attempting to kill his wife. The court said making a call on number 100 to the police after the incident and keeping the doors locked so that wife could not run away shows his mental state of mind quite aware. Hence the case cannot be of legal insanity. Full Story

1. The Kolkata Consumer Commission in Arkadeep Sarkar vs Yauatcha and Anr. held that restaurants cannot forcibly impose service charges on the customer. The act of the restaurant insisting on payment of service charge by the customer is illegal, malafide and contrary to law. Full Story

2. Today, the Chief Justice of India expressed his unhappiness regarding lawyers appearing in virtual hearings through mobile phones. The appearance through phones is causing problems in hearing and understanding for the Bench. The CJI said, ‘I think we need to ban appearance through phones.’ Full Story

3. In Evara Foundation vs Union of India and Ors the Central Government cleared to the Supreme Court that no person can be compelled to be vaccinated against his wishes. The Government has not issued any SOP ( Standard of Procedure), which makes carrying of vaccination certificates mandatory. Full Story

4. The Karnataka High Court in K Mallikarjuna vs H A Sudha Mallikarjuna said that a couple living separately for 21 years means the marriage is dead. The court, therefore, granted divorce, saying that nothing would be gained in keeping this marriage alive. The court must make endeavours to save marriage, but where there is no scope, the court must not make the divorce process lengthier for the parties. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Deepak Sharma vs the State of Haryana held that personal liberty to travel abroad cannot be denied to a person only because he is arrayed (displayed) as an accused under section 498A complaint filed by his brother’s wife against his brother and family. Full Story

2. In Amish Devgan’s case, it was observed that “In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and repudiates the right to equality. The dosage of hate speech is increasing with the law’s delay.” Full Story

3. The arbitral tribunal in Bengal Unitech Universal Siliguri Projects Ltd. vs Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority awarded Bengal Unitech Rs. 155 crores which were deposited with the respondent for a development project. Full Story

4. Uttarakhand High Court in State of Uttarakhand vs Prashant Sanglikar acquits former journalist and activist Prashant Rahi, who was accused of being a Maoist. He was charged along with three others for sedition and waging war against the state. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. held that bail in a pre-trial stage cannot be granted by a cryptic and casual order without considering the material aspects of the case. Elaborate reasoning is not necessarily required but material aspects cannot be ignored. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Mahendra vs the State of MP held that conviction with the aid of section 149 of IPC is not sustainable when the co-accused have been acquitted, making the membership of the unlawful assembly less than five leaving no unidentified accused in the case. Full Story

3. The Jharkhand High Court in Kayum Ansari vs Central Coalfield Limited said that to see whether an appellate order is speaking or non-speaking, the same has to be determined in light of the grounds raised in the appeal. It cannot be seen in isolation to the grounds. Full Story

4. After the issuance of notice by the Delhi High Court in Journalist Arti Tikoo’s plea against the social media platform to suspend her account, her Twitter account has been finally restored after two days of notice. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Deepak Sharma vs the State of Haryana held that taking custody of jewellery for safety purposes cannot be constituted as cruelty under section 498A of IPC. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Ors vs Prasanta Kumar Swain held that High Courts while dismissing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, must apply its judicial mind to the grounds or challenge of submission. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Vasudha Sethi vs Kiran V. Bhaskar held that in the matter of custody of the child, the parent’s rights are irrelevant. The touchstone of the principle that the child’s welfare shall be of paramount consideration and cannot be ignored by the courts. Full Story

4. In RIT Foundation vs UOI, the amicus curiae Adv. Rajshekhar Rao said that rape is rape and no classification or legal jugglery can alter that reality. He said that the exception to marital rape is based on an outdated concept of marriage which exempts a man from forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his wife. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not for correcting any legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The power under Article 227 must be used and exercised sparingly. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Haryana Tourism Ltd. vs Kandhari Beverages Ltd. held that a High Court, while dealing with an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cannot enter into the merits of the claim. Full Story

3. The Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka vs Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya held that a victim does not have a right to challenge every order of a trial court for revision. The right to appeal is a specific right carved out by the legislature, but the same cannot be exercised by the victim in every order and case. Full Story

4. The Bombay High Court in Navneet Ashok Bangalkar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr held that consent for sexual intercourse given under misconception of fact is not free consent. Sexual intercourse against the complainant’s will and obtaining her consent under a promise to marry could not be said to be free consent. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Jogendra held that demanding money for constructing a house comes under the ambit of dowry demand under section 304B of IPC. The dowry has an expansive meaning, said the court. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Suresh Kankra vs State of Uttar Pradesh held that a judicial magistrate while passing an order under section 156(3) of CrPC, must be mindful of the consequences. It is a judicial order; therefore, relevant materials are expected to be taken care of. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Rajendra Bhagat vs the State of Jharkhand held that the court must encourage genuine settlement in matrimonial disputes. If the parties are wilful in resuming happy married life, then the court must accept the settlement. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. held that if a builder fails in obtaining an occupation certificate, then it is a deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra vs Bhagwan held that employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim service benefits as a matter of right like government employees. Full Story

2. The Kerala High Court in Meria Joseph vs Anoop S Ponnattu held that temporarily shifting the place of residence does not make a valid ground for transfer of cases. The jurisdiction shall lie at the place of permanent residence only. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in S Amutha vs the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors held that if there is a representation against detention order, then the competent authority is bound to do so with the utmost despatch. Delaying in considering representation is not good. Full Story

4. The Karnataka High Court in Pradeep Moparthy vs the State of Karnataka held that while quashing petition under section 482 of CrPC, the court cannot appreciate evidence at that stage. Appreciation of evidence lies within the purview of the trial court. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Parvati Devi vs the State of Bihar held that cruelty in connection with demand to dowry before death must be in close proximity to death. But no proximity test can define any particular period. So it can be assessed through the facts and circumstances of the case. The conjoint reading section 113B of Evidence Act and 304B of IPC clearly says that the presumption is raised once the prosecution succeeds in establishing ingredients. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Jasdeep Singh Jassu vs the State of Punjab held that without any act in furtherance of common intention, mere common intention per se would not attract section 34 of IPC. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in Ram Nawal vs State held that penetration is sufficient to make the offence under section 376 IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act. The semen doesn’t need to be necessarily present. The court upheld the conviction of a man for raping a 5-year-old child. Full Story

4. The Delhi Court in State vs Shiv Shankar Prasad said that creating fear in the mind of a judge can impact the justice dispensation system. It can affect the mind and ability to perform well and judiciously. The court sentenced the staffer to 5 years in jail for threatening a judge and attempting to extort money. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in UHL Power Company Ltd. vs State of Himachal Pradesh held that post-award interest can be granted by an arbitrator on the interest amount awarded. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Alapan Bandyopadhyay held that decision passed by a tribunal can only be scrutinized by a High Court which has territorial jurisdiction over the question. Full Story

3. The Bombay High Court in Kishnabhai Nathubhai Ghutia & Anr. vs the Hon’ble Administrator Union Territory & Ors. held that no one can claim public holiday as a fundamental right. It is a matter of public and government policy. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Ram Ratan vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that to attract section 397 of IPC, the offender need not actually use the weapon if the weapon has been used to create fear in the mind of the victim, then it is sufficient. Full Story

1. In Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors. vs Union of India, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan told Supreme Court that Postgraduate Admissions must be completely merit-based and reservation must be minimal. In the level of super specialisation, there cannot be any reservation because any dilution of merit at this level would adversely affect the national goal. Full Story

2. Justice Madan B Lokur is heading a panel constituted under DCPCR (Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights) to assess the issues that are faced by children in conflict with the law living in observation homes. He said that a good justice system not only benefits those who are accused of various offences but everyone akin to legal aid services who need assistance. Full Story

3. The Government of Punjab has constituted a high-level committee of two members to conduct a probe into the alleged breach in the security of the Prime Minister in which his convoy was stuck on a flyover at Hussainwala. The petition says that if the prime minister of the country can face such a situation then the fundamental rights of citizens are in serious jeopardy in the state of Punjab and beyond. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in Rajat Jain and Ors. vs UPSC and Anr. denied to stay and postpone the mains examination of Civil Services conducted by UPSC. The court said that it will not interfere in the examination process. The candidates who have cleared prelims are eligible to appear for mains too. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Arvind vs State of Madhya Pradesh modified the order of life imprisonment till natural life to a sentence of 30 years without remission to a person convicted of rape and murder of 10 years old girl child. Full Story

2. The Karnataka High Court in Malappa vs the State of Karnataka held that where the court finds that DNA testing is required and important to be done, then the court can direct for the test, and there is no prohibition on it. Giving self incriminatory statements without any threat does not violate Article 20(3) as per Kathi Kalu judgment. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Bhadar Ram vs Jassa Ram said that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is deemed to be of his original state only, the place of which he is a permanent resident, and not of the state where he migrates. Full Story

4. The Kerala High Court in KS Narayana Elayathu vs Sandhya held that the Family Court is empowered to appoint guardian for both the minor and minor’s property. Whereas District Court is only empowered to appoint a guardian for the minor’s property and not the minor. Full Story

1. The Kerala High Court in Rajeswary vs the State of Kerala held that the convict doesn’t need to pay the fine amount in the cheque bounce case to the court. It can be paid directly to the complainant. Full Story

2. The Delhi High Court in XYZ vs GNCTD held that reproductive choice is a facet of the reproductive rights of a woman. The court allowed the termination of 28 weeks foetus in the case where the foetus was suffering from abnormalities. The court said the mother cannot be deprived of her right to continuation of pregnancy. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar vs Vijayanta Arya (DCP) and Ors sentenced a police officer to one day of imprisonment for arresting a man without serving him notice. The court said it is a violation of guidelines issued in the Arnesh Kumar case where it was held that giving notice under section 41A of CrPC is mandatory. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod held that to condone the delay beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot come into application. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Neil Aurelio Nunes and Others vs Union of India and Others held that Rs. 8 lakh annual income is a reasonable and just criterion for calculating quota under Economical Weaker Section (EWS). There is no need to change the criteria, said expert committee formulated by the central government to the court. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in I-Pay Clearing Services Private Limited vs ICICI Bank Limited held that just because that an application has been filed under section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act, the court is not under any obligation to remit the matter always to Arbitral Tribunal. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Manju Arora held that if the employee refuses the regular promotion, then he or she is not entitled to financial up-gradation benefits. Despite giving an offer, if an employee refuses, he himself shall be responsible for his stagnation. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Dilip Uttam Jayabhay held that an acquittal in a criminal trial has no relevance in disciplinary proceedings. The standard of proof in both cases stands on a different footing. Full Story

• December 2021 Law News
• November 2021 Law News
• October 2021 Law News
• September 2021 Law News
• August 2021 Law News
• July 2021 Law News
• June 2021 Law News
• May 2021 Law News
• April 2021 Law News
• March 2021 Law News
• February 2021 Law News
• January 2021 Law News
• December 2020 Law News

January 2022 – Law News for Students and Advocates
WritingLaw

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS

The courts are closed on account of winter break.

1. The Supreme Court in N Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI held that the money deposited by the customer in the bank is not held by it as a trustee but becomes part of the banker’s fund who is under a contractual obligation to pay the sum of the amount deposited by a customer on demand. Full Story

2. The relationship between the central government and the judiciary has always been under a scanner. In a bail petition, the court observed that constitutional courts have praised the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi five times:

1. Justice MR Shah praised Modi as a model and hero.
2. Justice Arun Mishra called him a versatile genius.
3. Justice MR Shah called him a vibrant and visionary leader.
4. Justice PV Kunhikrishnan supported his photo on the COVID certificate.
5. Justice Shekhar Yadav applauded him for his efforts for the COVID vaccination progress. Full Story

3. The Patna High Court in Anuj Kumar Gupta vs the State of Bihar held that a person whose death penalty has been commuted to life imprisonment is eligible for remission. Such a person can be released from prison if he has served at least 14 years in jail. Full Story

4. Breaking: With the rising COVID-19 and Omicron variant cases, the Delhi government today decided to enforce a ‘yellow’ alert in the city. As per it, places of mass gatherings shall be closed or will be open as per the prescribed capacity by the government. The night curfew shall be from 11 pm to 5 am. The list of things allowed and not allowed has been issued by Delhi Government. Full Story

1. While speaking at a public event at Vijaywada, the CJI NV Ramana said that majority is not a defence to the arbitrary actions of the government. Compliance with the Constitution is mandatory. He said if the judiciary won’t be having the power of judicial review, the functioning of democracy is unthinkable. Full Story

2. Speaking at the Decolonisation of the Indian Legal System at Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad, Justice Nazeer said that Indian Jurisprudence must be made a compulsory subject in all law universities. The eradication of the colonial mindset from the present legal system is a must, though it may take time. He said that today justice is not demanded but prayed for in the humblest terms. Full Story

3. The Madras High Court in R. Rajendran vs the Inspector of Police & Kathirvel held that the administrator of a WhatsApp group is not vicariously liable for the objectionable posts by its members. Here the common intention cannot be established if his role was only of an administrator and nothing else. Full Story

4. The Madras High Court in Gopi @ Saravanan vs State held that if in an offence of rape the victim has not violently resisted does not mean that the act was consensual. Absent of violent resistance does not mean the victim consented. Full Story

Christmas leave. Courts closed.

1. The Supreme Court in Ram Ratan vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that mere exhibition brandishing or openly holding a weapon by an offender to threaten and create apprehension in the victim’s mind is sufficient to constitute an offence under section 397 of IPC. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Brijmani Devi vs Pappu Kumar And Anr held that while granting bail to an accused, the court must record reasons though not elaborative. A cryptic bail order without any reasoning is a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in Sandeep Aggarwal vs Priyanka Aggarwal held that if before the marriage wife fails to disclose her mental disorder, then it constitutes fraud on the husband. The court said marriage is not made of only happy memories and good times, and two people in a marriage have to face challenges and weather the storm together. There need to be an understanding between the two. Full Story

4. The Karnataka High Court in Mohammed Mushtaq GK vs Ayesha Banu, while denying custody of the child to the father because he had remarried, held that the affection and love of biological and stepmother would not be ordinarily same towards the child. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Parvati Devi vs The State of Bihar Now State of Jharkhand held that once the prosecution can establish that a woman was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand to dowry soon before death, the court shall proceed on a presumption that the persons who have subjected her to cruelty with demand for dowry have caused dowry death under section 304B of IPC. Full Story

2. The Bombay High Court in Kashinath Narayan Gharat vs The State of Maharashtra held that after a long relationship, including a physical relationship, refusal to marry a woman does not constitute an offence of cheating under section 417 of IPC. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Star Paper Mills Limited vs Beharilal Madanlal Jaipuria Ltd held that if the author of the document does not deny its signature on the concerned document, then he need not be examined by the court. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs Manish Bakawale & Ors held that a candidate during his process of selection cannot alter its declaration of details which he has furnished earlier. The court said that allowing this can affect the position of others; therefore it is not justifiable. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Anu Kumar vs State and Anr held that while quashing a petition under section 482 CrPC, the court cannot issue directions for proceeding against a third party who was never produced before the court nor given any opportunity to appear. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Suman Chandra vs CBI held that from the time immaterial, it is accepted by the courts in India that quality of the evidence is the urgent desideratum (need, requirement) and not the quantity. The court held that reversing the order of acquittal is permissible only if the view of the trial court is not only erroneous (wrong, incorrect) but unreasonable and perverse. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in Asha Devi vs Muneshwar Singh held that the person against whom an order of maintenance under section 125 of CrPC is passed, the fact of his residence is immaterial. The order may be enforced in any place. Full Story

4. The Kerala High Court, while delivering a judgement on harassment by police against an 8-year-old girl, said that we cannot let our daughters grow up in anger. Immediate remedial steps should be taken in such cases. The court, therefore, directed the girl to be compensated with a grant of Rs. 1.5 lakh. Full Story

1. The Kerala High Court in Peter Myaliparampil vs Union of India and Anr, while rejecting the plea for removal of PM Modi’s photo from Covid certificate, said that it is we who elect eligible persons and send them to parliament and the majority party becomes leader. So citizens must respect the Prime Minister of India. The Indian Democracy is being praised by the world. The Prime Minister is elected because he has got people’s mandate. Full Story

2. National Lok Adalat was set up by Karnataka Legal Service Authority on December 18. A total of 3,37,680 cases have been settled in a day, out of which 8,606 were pre-litigation cases. Full Story

3. The Madras High Court in Mathivanan vs Inspector of Police and Ors said that right to be funny can be mined in Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Being funny and poking fun at another are two different things. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in JSB Cargo and Freight Forwarder Pvt Ltd vs State and Anr held that section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not mandatory but a directory provision. The provision gives power to the court to hear the cheque bounce cases, to order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant. Full Story

1. While passing of Electoral Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said that linking of Aadhar card with Voter ID would not be compulsory but voluntary in nature. The Lok Sabha has passed the Bill. Full Story

2. The Karnataka High Court in The State Of Karnataka & Ors vs CN Apporva Shree & Anr held that there cannot be any discrimination between an unmarried daughter and a married daughter regarding appointment on compassionate grounds. Full Story

3. The Kerala High Court in Ramla vs Abdul Rahuf held that if a man refuses cohabitation or fulfilment of marital obligation with the first wife after a second marriage, then such act is violative of Quranic injunctions and a valid ground for divorce. Full Story

4. While speaking at the eighteenth annual convocation of NALSAR, Hyderabad, the Chief Justice of India said that to succeed at trial advocacy, one requires a separate skill, including the presence of mind and intellectual inputs. The CJI urged young lawyers to gain experience at the trial court. He said it is necessary to be acquainted with ground proceedings to build or establish themselves as a big lawyer. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr vs Union of India held that initiating disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination. Mental disability impairs the ability of a person to comply with the standards of a workplace in comparison to their able-bodied counterparts. Full Story

2. The Patna High Court in Shiv Kumar vs The State of Bihar and Others directed social platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Meta and Messenger to cooperate in the probe with Bihar Police for social media posts against judges and higher dignitaries. Full Story

3. The Bombay High Court in Jabbar Isak Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra held that the accused cannot be convicted solely based on admissions made by him under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court upholds Delhi High Court judgment in Bhavya Nain vs High Court of Delhi. The court held that Bipolar Affective Disorder is not a permanent disability. The court upheld the selection of Bhavya Nain as a judicial officer and capable of disposing of his responsibilities. Everything can be achieved with strong determination, added court. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in IL & FS Engineering and Constructions Company vs M/s Bhargavarma Constructions and Others held that plaintiff is Dominus Litis (master of the suit). It is he who is entitled to decide who all should be added as parties in the case. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Amrita Sinha held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The authority can evaluate the family’s financial position upon the death while in service. It is not a vested right but to enable the family to overcome financial crisis after the death of the bread-earning member. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Bordeuri Samaj vs Riju Prasad held that contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary and should be exercised in exceptional circumstances and sparingly with circumspection. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs the state of Rajasthan held that proceedings for arbitration and conciliation cannot be clubbed if it relates to the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act. If conciliation proceedings have failed, an arbitration attempt is mandatory. Full Story

1. Breaking: Union Cabinet clears the proposal to raise the legal age of marriage for women from 18 to 21 years. This move will make the legal age of marriage for both men and women the same, that is 21 years. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Padma Baraik vs Union of India held that the state is under a duty to protect the environment, natural resources, and nature to ensure that the citizens live with dignity and their right to dignified life do not get violated. Full Story

3. The Madras High Court in E-merge Tech Global Services P Ltd. vs Mr M.R.Vindhyasagar & Anr explained the difference between compensatory damages and restitutionary damages. The court said that compensatory damages are awarded to redress the loss suffered by the aggrieved party, whereas restitutionary damages direct the defendant to disgorge (discharge) the benefit accrued due to unjust enrichment. Full Story

4. The Kerala High Court in Ranjith vs the State of Kerala held that without indication of penetrative sexual assault and based on the vague statement of the victim that accused hugged him and impregnated her would not constitute an offence of rape. Full Story

1. While speaking at the felicitation ceremony organised for Justice Hima Kohli by “Women in Law and Litigation”, the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said that we need a higher percentage of women in the judiciary. Their representation is a must. Only 1 out of 4 girls wish to get into litigation. The ratio has to improve. The bar and bench must ensure a friendly atmosphere in courtrooms. Full Story

2. The Kerala High Court in JW Aragadan vs Hashmi N S and Anr held that it is the legal right of a child born out of an inter-faith couple to be maintained by his/her father. The caste, faith or religion cannot have any rational basis for determining the parental duty of a father. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Rakesh Rai vs the State of Sikkim held that recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act would not be admissible if the disclosure statement was made in connection to a crime undergoing a separate trial. And especially when the disclosure statement was not made to the jurisdictional police officer. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in Suraj vs State held that the purpose of the POCSO Act is to treat minors as a separate class by itself. The ultimate purpose of this law is the paramount well-being of the child and to protect minors from flagrant violence inflicted on them. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Beereddy Dasaratharmi Reddy vs V Manjunath held that if a Karta has alienated the joint Hindu family property either for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate, then such alienation would bind the interest of all undivided members irrespective of the member being a widow or a minor. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Mohan @Srinivas @ Seena @Tailor Seena vs the State of Karnataka held that a trial court cannot be expected to act in a particular way if the case is sensitive. Every case has its journey towards the truth. If a trial court decides a sensitive case on its own merits, then it should rather be appreciated. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in N Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI, explained the essentials necessary to attract sections 409, 420 and 477A of IPC. For section 409 IPC, the dishonest intention is the most crucial element to be proved; for section 420, deception with dishonest intention; and section 477A requires a falsification of accounts. Full Story

4. The Madras High Court in Munna vs State of Tamil Nadu, Sivaraj vs State of Tamil Nadu, while confirming the conviction of rape, said that men are usually glorified for their sexual adventures and women are stigmatized for the same. Treating women as an object in movies leaves a detrimental effect on society. Morality is the only buzzword to prosper society. Full Story

1. Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera has signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. The bill also enables gay couples to adopt children. Piera said that “This new law will allow all children with a papa and mama, with two papas or with two mamas, to have the same rights and the same protection”. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in M/S Suvarna Cooperative Bank Ltd vs State of Karnataka and Anr held that just because some other person who might have committed the offence but are not arrayed as accused in the charge sheet, then the proceedings against a person whose name is in the charge sheet would not be quashed merely on that ground. Full Story

3. The Karnataka High Court in Kumari vs State of Karnataka and Ors allowed the victim of rape to terminate her pregnancy which crossed the stipulated period of 24 weeks. The court said it is necessary to terminate as not doing of same would endanger her physical and mental health. In exceptional circumstances, the court can allow such termination. Laws are not superior to human life but for the protection of life. Full Story

4. The Karnataka High Court in Late Indravathi Srinivasan vs Dr Sunitha Venugopal held that a decree can be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC at any stage of the suit where admission of facts has been made either in pleadings or otherwise. Full Story

1. Breaking: The Supreme Court designates seven retired High Court judges and eighteen lawyers as senior advocates. The decision has been taken by the Chief Justice of India and the judges of the Supreme Court in the full court meeting. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in State of Odisha vs Pratima Mohanty held that the court while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, must not embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability of allegations made in the complaint or First Information Report. Full Story

3. The Allahabad High Court in Gulafsa Begum vs the State of UP held that a rape victim cannot be compelled or coerced to undergo a DNA test for determining the paternity of her child. Full Story

4. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Neha vs Vibhor Garg held that recording the telephonic conversation of the wife secretly and without her knowledge is an infringement of her privacy. It is a clear-cut breach of her fundamental right to privacy. Full Story

1. Two High Courts in favour and 13 High Courts are against All India Judicial Services, said Law Minister Kiren Rijiju to the Lok Sabha. As per the government, it is a way to strengthen the overall justice delivery system. It will allow fresh talent to get selected properly on the All India merit selection system. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Gulab vs State of Uttar Pradesh held that if the weapon with which offence is committed is not recovered, then it would not discredit the case of the prosecution, which relies on the cogent direct evidence. Full Story

3. The Allahabad High Court in Ishaque vs the State of UP held that the purpose of examination of the accused under section 313 of CrPC is to ensure that whether he had been given a fair opportunity to say what he wants to say against the prosecution case. If not given, then it would be a travesty of justice. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in Ram Gaua Raksha Dal v UOI and Ors held that it is the right of the consumer to know in detail the items used for manufacturing food items. One should not resort to the deceit of the ingredients or the source. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Shri K Jayaram and Ors vs Bangalore Development Authority held that non-disclosure of past details and pending litigation concerning the subject matter of the dispute would amount to material suppression of facts. For a litigant to attract discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, he must come with clean hands. Full Story

2. Rajya Sabha clears the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020 and the Assistive Reproduction Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2021. Both the Bills aim to regulate IVF (in vitro fertilisation) clinics. The Bill proposes establishing Surrogacy Board at the national and state level. It also proposes to prohibit commercial surrogacy but permits Altruistic Surrogacy. Full Story

3. Delhi Court in Tirthankara Lord Rishab Dev and Ors vs UOI held that wrongs of the past cannot be a basis for disturbing the present peace. The court said in an allegation which demanded the restoration of the temple complex instead of the existing Quwwat-Ul-Islam Masjid within the Qutub Minar Complex at Mehrauli. The court said India has a rich cultural history, but the same cannot be disturbed as it is a protected monument. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Rathee vs Seema Rathee held that if a daughter expects her father to support her in education, then she must also play the role of daughter. It cannot be a one-way street, said the court. Full Story

1. There is no proposal to make the Law Commission of India a statutory body, clarifies Central Government to the Supreme Court. The Ministry of the Law said that we are currently occupied with the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the Law Commission. Full Story

2. The Delhi High Court in Beena Devi and Ors vs Shri Vijay Kumar Dev and Ors said that providing food to the needy citizens should be the topmost priority of a state. Therefore, we expect Delhi Government to open a fair price shop within two weeks. This work is well within the government’s power. Full Story

3. The Calcutta High Court in Saddam Hussain vs State of West Bengal held that it would not be good to punish a person for rape if his promise to marry could not be fructified (successful, make something fruitful) due to subsequent events like opposition from family etc. We cannot say that a sexual relationship was made on account of the false promise of marriage. Full Story

4. In a debate over the Supreme Court and High Court (Salary and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill, 2021, the Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said that where the judiciary is independent, the Legislature and Executive are also independent. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Amudhavali and Ors. vs P Rukmani and Ors held that registration of a document is always subject to the adjudication of the rights of the parties by the competent civil court. Full Story

2. While delivering a lecture on 13th BR Ambedkar Memorial Lecture on “Conceptualising Marginalisation”, Justice DY Chandrachud said that a narrow concept of merit only allows upper caste individuals to mask their obvious caste privilege. He said that castelessness is a privilege that only the upper caste can afford because their caste privilege has already translated into social, political and economic capital. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority vs N Nanjappa and Anr held that a separate suit is not required to be filed for questions relating to the right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99 of CPC. Full Story

4. A Delhi Court in TTK Prestige Ltd vs Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd, while dealing with judgment on trademark infringement, quoted a few verses from the Bhagwad Gita. The translation of verse was: “The logic for action must be known, so also the logic for inaction and that the logic for a prohibited action must also be known, therefore the practice of ‘karma’ is profound.” (कररणण हपप बणदवयय, बणदवयय च पवकररण:|अकररणशच बणदवयय गहनन कर रणण गपत:||) It was recited to show the importance of weighing and evaluating a host of factors in a summary judgment. Full Story

1. In a lecture organised by the Advocates Association of Western India at Bombay High Court, Justice Abhay S Oka of the Supreme Court said that the five ethics on which the legal profession is based is integrity, objectivity, professional competence, confidentiality and due care. And the foremost duty of an advocate is to save the time of the court as time is very precious. Full Story

2. The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in Sanjeev Kumar vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr held that while exercising inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court cannot critically evaluate the statement of the prosecutrix which is recorded under section 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Full Story

3. In a valedictory session of the 30th batch of Civil Judges of Bihar Judicial Services organised by Bihar Judicial Academy, Justice MR Shah, Supreme Court of India, said that the judges must devote all their time to the service of the people. He remarked that honesty, empathy and complete dedication of the work are hallmarks of a good judge. He said that a judge should always be humble and behave properly with the advocates and litigants. Full Story

4. While speaking at the Constitution Day celebration held by Adhivakta Parishad of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal said that India was never a Muslim, Christian or Hindu country. Adding of word ‘secular‘ to the Preamble was a narrow-minded approach. India has been ruled by innumerable rulers, and in every period, it was believed that India is beyond religion or a Devbhoomi. Full Story

1. Speaking at the event organised by the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Hyderabad, the Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, said that the option of going to the court must be the last resort. The most important tool for resolving any dispute is the right attitude. Arbitration, conciliation and mediation are best efforts at restoring a relationship. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Sunil Todi vs the State of Gujarat held that section 202(2) of CrPC does not apply to the complaints made under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act concerning the examination of witnesses on oath. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Budhadev Karmaskar vs State of West Bengal and Ors said that the right to food, clothing and shelter falls within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is the constitutional mandate of all the States and Union Territories to ensure the distribution of a minimum quantity of dry ration to the sex workers without insisting them to produce ration cards for the same as it would be difficult for them to produce any identity proof. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs Mudrika Singh held that to uphold the mechanism of the acts such as sexual harassment at the workplace, the courts need to interpret the service rules and laws governing sexual harassment at the workplace that it renders justice to all. The service rules should not be interpreted in a hypertechnical manner. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Aditya Dubey (Minor) & Anr vs Union of India & Ors said that misreporting of the court proceedings conveys the twisted impression of the judge’s statement to the public. Some sections of media try to project us as “villains”, said CJI NV Ramana on Delhi pollution matters and the closing of schools. The court said we never directed the Delhi government to close the schools. Full Story

2. The Delhi High Court in Shahrukh Ali vs the State of Delhi directed a man to serve three weeks in an animal care centre for violating his bail condition. The man did not commit any illegal activity; therefore, a lenient view was taken. Full Story

3. The Gauhati High Court in Amarjyoti Gogoi and Ors vs the State of Assam and Ors held that if the act of police or a public servant is connected to the discharge of official duty, then only a sanction under section 197 of CrPC is required. If the police get to indulge in a criminal conspiracy or any such other thing while on duty, then the same cannot be treated with the act done in discharge of official duty. The uniform cannot be used as a shield. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Sunil Todi vs the State of Gujarat held that the object of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to facilitate and enhance the acceptability of cheques and build people’s faith in negotiable instruments for the transaction of business. Section 138 of the said Act is attracted where debt is incurred after the check is drawn but before its encashment. Full Story

1. The Delhi High Court in Neelu Shrivastava vs State and Ors differentiated between FIR and Zero FIR. It said that FIR is registered where the incident occurs within the jurisdiction of a particular police station. In contrast, Zero FIR can be registered in any police station irrespective of where the incident took place. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Dr G Sadasivan Nair vs Cochin University of Science And Technology held that pension which is payable to the employee at the time of retirement shall be determined and regulated by the rules existing at the time of retirement. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Neha Tyagi vs Lt. Col Deepak Tyagi held that any dispute between husband and wife should not make a child suffer. It is the responsibility of the father to maintain the child till attaining majority. The child needs to be maintained as per the status of his father. Full Story

4. The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in Rayees Ahmad Khan vs Union Territory through P/S Kupwara held that unless circumstances so demand or compel the remedy of pre-arrest, bail application should be made before the court of the first instance instead of directly invoking the jurisdiction of High Court. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Phool Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that a rape accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if she is found to be credible and trustworthy. Sole testimony should not be doubted by the court merely on the basis of assumptions and surmises. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya vs National Investigation Agency held that undertrials cannot be kept deprived of personal liberty unduly wrong pending trial. When it is obvious to the court that a timely trial would not be possible, then the court would be under obligation to enlarge the accused on bail. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Government of NCT of Delhi said that the Delhi government has failed to control the spread of dengue and deaths occurring due to it. The government was under the impression of fear that they might lose votes if they make strict policies or take strict actions against people. It is a very lamentable view of the government. Full Story

4. The Calcutta High Court in Nurai Sk @ Nurul SK vs State of West Bengal held that dragging scarf of a woman, pulling victim’s hand and proposing her for marriage does not create offence of sexual assault under POCSO Act. The accused can be held under section 354(1)(ii) and section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Full Story

• November 2021 Law News
• October 2021 Law News
• September 2021 Law News
• August 2021 Law News
• July 2021 Law News
• June 2021 Law News
• May 2021 Law News
• April 2021 Law News
• March 2021 Law News
• February 2021 Law News
• January 2021 Law News
• December 2020 Law News

December 2021 – Law News for Students and Advocates
WritingLaw

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS

1. The Supreme Court in Pradeep S Wodeyar vs the State of Karnataka held that the court is not under an obligation to give a reasoned order for taking cognizance under section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code based on a police report. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Richa Dubey vs the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr gave 7 days to gangster Vikas Dubey’s wife to surrender for applying for bail in a cheating case. The petitioner (wife) is entitled to raise all pleas and contentions at the time of framing the charge, said court. Full Story

3. While speaking at the valedictory ceremony of the Constitution Day celebration held at Vigyan Bhawan, the CJI NV Ramana said that rebranding existing courts as commercial courts without creating special infrastructure will not have any impact on the pendency of the cases. One of the major issues is that states are not properly utilising the funds allocated by the central government. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in ITC vs Nestle said that anyone can have exclusive rights or monopoly over the laudatory (expressing praise) expression ‘Magic Masala’. The loyalty of the consumers lies with the brand names that is Maggi or Yipee. “Masala” and “Non-Masala” are subdivisions. The consumers are intelligent enough to identify between the two. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Hasmat Ali vs Amina Bibi and Ors held that if a second appeal does not involve a substantial question of law, then the High Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal. But for dismissing the appeal, the High Court has to record the reasons in writing. Giving a conclusion is necessary as it helps the adverse party understand why the appeal was not accepted. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in the Union of India and Ors vs Ram Bahadur Yadav held that it is a settled legal position that if any rule contemplates method and manner to adopt special procedure, it becomes mandatory on the part of authorities to exercise such power by adhering to the rule strictly. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in Kinri Dhir vs Veer Singh said that the claims raised by competing parents must necessarily be recognized as being subservient to the interest of the child. The welfare of the child must be the paramount consideration of the court. The petitioner is a mother who is separated from his 2-year-old child and has been given custody on a daily basis, which is hampering the child. The court said that such things can’t be ignored. Full Story

4. The Uttarakhand High Court in Karan Yadav vs CBI held that a person cannot be convicted only on the basis that he is absconding. The fact of absconding cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. The court also opined that the statement given under section 161 of the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon to record the guilt of the accused. Full Story

1. Justice AM Khanwilkar, while delivering the welcome address at the Valedictory Function of the Constitution Day 2021 celebrations, remarked that Indians have travelled to Mars since independence, but our legal system remains the same. Full Story

2. Former Supreme Court Justice MB Lokur, while speaking on the subject of the independence of the judiciary on Constitution Day, questioned why so many judges and Chief Justices were being transferred from High Courts. Full Story

3. Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court was speaking at The Leaflet’s Constitution Day talk titled “Undermining the Idea of India: Which Way Forward?” on the occasion of Constitution Day 2021. He reminded citizens that history will not judge us by highways, bridges or statues, but by how well we preserved the constitutional idea of India and saved it from being undermined. Full Story

4. In the case of Electrosteel Castings Limited vs UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the Supreme Court observed that bar under section 34 of SARFAESI Act on filing civil suit is attracted if allegations of ‘fraud’ are made without any particulars. Full Story

1. While hearing the case of Dr Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that the vaccination against COVID-19 has huge merits, and even the WHO says so. Full Story

2. On the occasion of Constitution Day 2021, at an event organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana urged lawyers to protect the judiciary from targeted and motivated attacks. Full Story

3. In the case of CPIL vs Union of India, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Central government and IPS officer Rakesh Asthana after briefly hearing CPIL lawyer, Prashant Bhushan, in a plea filed by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) challenging his appointment as Commissioner of Delhi Police. Full Story

4. While setting aside a 2014 judgement given by Allahabad High Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Chunni Lal, the Supreme Court held that two persons cannot be appointed to the same post of Deputy Collector. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs UOI held that directions to create special courts for the trial of criminal cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs does not mean or cannot be construed to transfer the case triable by Magistrate to the Court of Sessions. It is understood that directions exist, but the jurisdiction must be conferred as per the statute. The transfer of the case from Magistrate court to Sessions Court also results in loss of the right of appeal in Sessions court under section 374 of CrPC. Full Story

2. The Madras High Court in S Paul vs the Tahsildar and Anr held that conversion from one religion to another does not alter the caste of a person. Where both the petitioner and his wife belong to Scheduled Castes by birth, the petitioner, under converting to another religion, cannot claim an inter-caste marriage certificate. Full Story

3. The Karnataka High Court in Kumari D vs the State of Karnataka held that Article 21 of the Constitution gives a woman liberty to exercise her reproductive choice. The act of forcing a woman to bear with an unwanted intrusion on her body and endure the consequences of that intrusion would be a clear transgression of her inviolable fundamental right of personal liberty. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in Vineet Jindal vs Salman Khurshid and Ors on ban on publication and sale of book ‘Sunrise over Ayodhya’ where there is a comparison of Hindutva with an Islamic state and Boko Haram; the court said if people don’t like the book, then they have an option not to buy it. If you don’t agree with the author, then don’t read it. If you are hurt with any passage or chapter, then skip it or don’t read it. The court cannot do anything in this regard. Full Story

1. The Karnataka High Court in Anil Kushalkar vs the State of Karnataka held that before exercising powers under section 482 CrPC, the High Court must give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. In case of heinous offences like rape, the proceedings cannot be quashed even if the parties have settled the dispute. Quashing such proceedings can have serious implications on society. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Devender Bhaskar vs the State of Haryana held that the question regarding equivalence of educational qualification is technical. It cannot be evaluated by the court using the power of judicial review. The eligibility criteria matters have to be considered by the recruiting authority. Judicial Review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed nor decide its equivalence with any other given qualification. Full Story

3. The Kerala High Court in Avinash vs the State of Kerala said that if police personnel or officer is not in uniform while on duty and the citizens ask them of their authority while performing duty, then such asking of question cannot be called as obstruction. Police must wear uniforms to make their identity clear which is also a matter of pride, respect and authority over citizens. Full Story

4. Breaking: CBI arrests Enforcement Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and a private person for bribery. All the examinations that have been held between 11th to 15th November under Haryana Public Service Commission are under strict scrutiny after the arrest of three other officials caught red-handed for corruption in ongoing recruitment four days ago. All further examinations are postponed till further notice. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in State of UP vs Vikash Kumar Singh said that the Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to a competent authority directing it to grant relaxation in qualifying service for promotion. The court said that relaxation cannot be prayed as a matter of right. It is the discretion of the court concerning relaxation. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan vs Rajesh Kumar held that payment of the price is an essential requirement for constituting sale. The payment may be at a present date or a future date. But if it is executed without payment or no future date is provided for the payment, then it is not a sale. It is void in the eyes of the law. Full Story

3. The Bombay High Court in Dhyandev Kachruji Wankhede vs Nawab Malik said that the public has the right to comment about a person’s actions in an official capacity. The court refused to pass temporary injunction order against Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik from making statements against NCB’s Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede. The right to privacy has to be balanced with freedom of speech court added. Full Story

4. In a petition filed in Peter Myaliparampil vs Union of India for removing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s photograph from the COVID-19 vaccination certificate, the Kerala High Court has sent notice to the centre to file their counter in the matter. He claims that the national campaign was used as a media campaign for the PM. When government campaigns are done using government funds, then it should not personify a leader like PM as he is a leader of a political party as well. Full Story

1. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bal Raj vs Priya and Ors held that in case of default or breach of payment of maintenance, no court can impose civil imprisonment beyond one month. If the default persists even after the expiry of one month, then the aggrieved party can approach the magistrate again. Full Story

2. Addressing the 40th Convocation of the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, said that modern education is utilitarian. True learning must involve holistic learning, including the development of moral and ethical values. True education develops patience, mutual understanding and respect. Full Story

3. In the State of Maharashtra vs Jignesh Vyas and Ors, the Mumbai Court held that sending sexually explicit messages in the pre-marital period or in the consensual relationship and the woman not objecting to the same at that relevant point of time would not attract section 509 of IPC which is insulting the modesty of a woman. The court also opined that sending messages at this stage may delight the other one. It can give a feeling of belongingness and closeness. Full Story

4. The Allahabad High Court in Sonu Kushwaha vs State of Uttar Pradesh held that putting a penis in the mouth of the child attracts offence under section 4 of the POCSO Act that is penetrative sexual assault and does not attract aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors vs Pankaj Kumar held that informing or intimating a student through an SMS of his selection is sufficient and valid. The court said the requirement of a contact number in the application form is with a purpose to communicate with the student only. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs Swayam Prabha and Ors held that without giving an opportunity to be heard to the third party, no order of injunction can be passed concerning suit property that is directly affecting the third party. Full Story

3. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ajay Jatav vs State of MP and Anr., while referring to the judgment of Independent Thought vs Union of India, said that establishing a physical relationship with the wife being minor, that is under 18 years of age, would constitute rape. The age of consent has been changed from 15 to 18 in such cases. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in Rajesh Jhunjhunwala and Ors vs The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited and Ors said that it would be our failure if we do not interfere with the perverse and unsustainable orders of tribunals functioning under its superintendence. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Courts exercise the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Meena Pawaia vs Ashraf Ali held that if a person was not earning or doing any job at the time of accident or death, then his income will be determined as per his educational qualification. His legal heirs shall be granted compensation according to this criterion under the Motor Vehicles Act. Full Story

2. The Delhi High Court in Bhavreen Kandhari vs Gyanesh Bharti and Ors held that freedom of movement is guaranteed under our Constitution. It should not be hemmed in by the lack of civic amenities. The basic amenities like the secure neighbourhood, clear and tree-lined footpaths and so on. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Manraj Enterprises held that the arbitrator is bound by the terms of the contract and cannot award interest contrary to the terms of the contract. If parties had agreed that no interest shall be payable, then Arbitral Tribunal can’t award interest. Full Story

4. Breaking: On the occasion of Guru Purab, the three farm laws, namely:

• The Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance & Farm Services Act 2020,
• The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act and
• The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act

have been decided to be repealed by the Central Government in the winter session of Parliament. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Attorney General for India vs Satish and Anr held that making the ‘skin to skin’ contact necessary for the offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act would make its section 7 absurd. Such interpretation will destroy the intent of the Act for which it was implemented. It is like if a person is wearing gloves while physical groping, then it would not be an offence as the element of skin to skin not attracted. Full Story

2. The Delhi High Court in Lakshmi Bhavya Tanneeru vs Union of India held that the right to a meaningful life is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Denying inter-cadre transfer on the grounds of marriage cannot be baseless. It requires valid reasons to be denied. The court said this in the transfer of IAS husband-wife who requested their cadre to be the same for balancing personal life. Full Story

3. The Madras High Court in D Senthilkumar vs The Chief Secretary allowed the entry of 20,000 devotees for the Karthigai Deepam festival on Friday but on a condition that double vaccination certificates need to be produced for checking. The devotees will not be permitted to enter the Annamalaiyar temple, but they can witness the festival of lights from Girivalam (from the circumambulation of the holy mountain). Full Story

4. “Justice is the sum of all moral duty“, said Orissa High Court in X’ vs State of Odisha and Ors. In a gang rape case of a 20 years old victim carrying over 26 weeks of pregnancy, the court directed the state government to pay Rs. 10 lakh as compensation. Offences like rape leave scars on the psyche of the victim and hurt society. Full Story

1. The Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, while hearing the Delhi Air Pollution case, made critical comments about TV debates over this issue. He said that they take statements said in court and interpret them out of context with hidden agenda. Debates taking place in news channels are pollutive than actual air pollution. Full Story

2. The Delhi High Court in Anil Kumar vs State held that the trauma a child suffers in sexual offences affects his or her growth when the mental psyche of the child is vulnerable. The court denied bail to a tuition teacher who sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl. The object of the POCSO Act was and is to protect the child from sexual offences. Full Story

3. Breaking: To ensure impartial and independent investigation, the Supreme Court in the Lakhimpur Kheri case appointed Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, former judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, to look into the matter. The SIT (Special Investigation Team)has also been reconstituted. Full Story

4. The Madras High Court in Leena Manimekalai vs Regional Passport Officer held that defamation is not a heinous crime. The passport cannot be impounded by the court under section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code referring to the judgement of Suresh Nanda vs Central Bureau of Investigation. The court, therefore, ordered the release of filmmaker Leena Manimekalai’s passport. Full Story

1. In Anun Dhawan and Others vs Union of India and Ors, the Supreme Court gave a last chance to the Central Government to formulate a pan India policy on community kitchens. It is the constitutional duty of a welfare state to ensure that no person dies of hunger. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Gurjant Singh vs the State of Punjab held that a criminal appeal against conviction cannot be treated as infructuous merely because the convicted appellant served the sentence awarded by the trial court. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in Breathe Fine Lounge & Bar vs GNCTD permitted the service and sale of herbal hookas in restaurants and bars subject to adherence to COVID-19 protocols. The court said that the government and other authorities shall be restrained from interfering with the service of herbal hookas. Full Story

4. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Deepak Raj Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh said that people’s faith in the judiciary is the important facet of judicial administration. It is the duty of every lawyer, judge, legislator and executive to maintain and protect the faith of people in the independence of the judiciary. Full Story

1. Breaking: Supreme Court refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition filed by the Central Government against the order passed by Delhi High Court on the doorstep delivery of ration. The petition claims that the distribution of ration in such a way is against the provisions of the National Security Act. Now the broad question is whether a State Government can deviate from the mode of distribution provided under the Act or not. Full Story

2. Passing the buck to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not reasonable, remarked Chief Justice of India in Delhi Air Pollution matter. Do not give us lame excuses, said Supreme Court. If you’ll not hold liability or take emergent measures, it’ll compel us to hold an inquiry into revenue you are collecting and spending on popularity slogans instead of people welfare. Full Story

3. Advocate Vineet Jindal in Vineet Jindal vs Union of India & Ors files a petition in Delhi High Court against the publication and sale of the book ‘Sunrise Over Ayodhya‘ written by Congress leader and former Union Minister Salman Khurshid. He asserts that the book compares Hindutva to groups like ISIS and BOKO HARAM. The statement is not only defamatory but enrages the emotions of all followers of the Hindu religion, added the petitioner. Full Story

4. The Kerala High Court in Salim Kumar vs State of Kerala and Ors held that consuming alcohol in a private place is not an offence unless it creates any nuisance. And merely because a person is found with odour or smell of alcohol does not mean that he is intoxicated. Full Story

1. In the case of Aditya Dubey (minor) and Another vs Union of India, the Supreme Court said that stubble burning by farmers cannot be blamed entirely for Delhi’s worsening air quality. Full Story

2. In the case of BK Enterprise vs the State of Manipur and Another, the Supreme Court deprecated the state of Manipur for lethargy and negligence on the State and Social Welfare Department part for not issuing the fresh tender process and Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) after 2018 for transporting rice and other micronutrients from Food Corporation of India’s depots in the state to offices of Child Development Project Officers. Full Story

3. The hearing of the matter relating to the Delhi pollution crisis witnessed an interesting exchange between the Chief Justice of India NV Raman and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta as to how both of them have not received most part of their education from English medium. Full Story

4. In the case of Sadakat Kotwar vs the State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court observed that, in an attempt to murder cases (section 307 of the Indian Penal Code), the intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court set aside the recent Bombay High Court order which had directed the National Testing Agency to hold a fresh exam for two NEET UG aspirants over a mistake committed by the invigilator, which resulted in the mix-up of the test booklets and the OMR sheets in the case of National Testing Agency versus Vaishnavi Vijay Bopael and Others. Full Story

2. In the case of Suo Motu vS Travancore Devaswom Board, the Kerala High Court on Friday insisted on establishing spot booking counters at several prime locations so that pilgrims who do not own a phone or are not acquainted with online booking may not be at a disadvantage as compared to other devotees intending to visit Sabarimala this year. Full Story

3. In Newtech Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs the State of UP, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the retroactive application of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to the ongoing real estate projects. Full Story

4. In the case of Union of India vs Ex Constable Ram Karan, the Supreme Court said that even if punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority is disproportionate, the court should not normally decide quantum and matter should be sent back. Full Story

1. In the case of Nandlal Lohariya vs Jagdish Chand Purohit, the Supreme Court observed that an advocate losing a case cannot be said to be a deficiency in service on his/her part. Full Story

2. Kapil Sibal tells Supreme Court that to demonstrate the lack of proper investigation by the SIT in the Gujarat riots conspiracy case, SIT has not challenged the Gujarat High Court’s decision to acquit Maya Kodnani. Full Story

3. In the case of the State of Bihar vs Pawan Kumar, the Supreme Court observed that the total ban on legal mining, apart from giving rise to illegal mining, also causes huge loss to the public exchequer. Full Story

4. Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the matter before a Bench regarding incidents in Tripura & FIRs and 41A notices issued to lawyers who went on a fact-finding mission. Full Story

1. Speaking at an event to celebrate Legal Services Day, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said that looking at the pendency of cases, the government is taking appropriate measures to ensure a proper infrastructure for the lower judiciary. He said it is disheartening to see an ordinary person struggling for justice. A person may sell off the property to get justice, but he doesn’t get a date. Full Story

2. The Allahabad High Court in Varun Tiwari vs the State of U.P held that if the charge sheet is not filed in the court within the stipulated time, then the accused has an indefeasible right to default bail under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in Harish Kumar vs Sarita held that normal wear and tear are part of the relationship. They cannot be made ground to dissolve the marriage. Husband demanding dowry and consuming alcohol are not very serious allegations that can hamper the wife’s mental state for ending the relationship. The parties have two children, and they must realise their sense of responsibility and look at marriage as a sacrament. Full Story

4. The Allahabad High Court in Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi vs the State of U.P held that if the court does not agree with the protest petition, then the same can be treated as a complaint by the court; so that the informant can be allowed to produce evidence in support of his complaint made to the police. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar vs the State of Karnataka held that for the imposition of death sentence in rape cases, the low age of rape victim is not the only consideration for imposing the same. If low age would be the only consideration, then a death sentence would be the last resort in maximum cases. Capital punishment is given in rare of the rarest cases. Full Story

2. Speaking at an award ceremony, an eminent jurist and constitutional expert – Fali S Nariman, said that great cases are not won because of their inherent strength or weakness. It is just an illusion. Advocacy plays a crucial role in it. The way an advocate portrays a case in court matters. Law is cultivating a cult of humility. Talk less and devote more time to the case at hand. Be smart but never too smart, and you will excel in whatever you do, he added. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in State of Chhattisgarh vs Sal Udyog Private Limited held that in an arbitration appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there is no embargo on the party from raising an additional ground for setting aside an arbitration award. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Dinesh Mahajan vs Vishal Mahajan held that mere apprehension of threat to life without filing a complaint is not reasonable ground to transfer a case. The court relied upon the judgment of Puneet Dalmia vs Central Bureau of Investigation. Full Story

1. The Delhi Court, in the Uphaar fire tragedy case that took place in the year 1997, sentenced Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and others to 7 years imprisonment for tampering evidence. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pankaj Sharma also imposed a fine of Rs. 2.25 crores each. After thinking overnights and nights, I have concluded that they deserve punishment, said the judge. Full Story

2. Today, the legal revolutionist Dr NR Madhava Menon has been posthumously conferred Padma Bhushan by the President of India, Ram Nath Kovind. He has served as a member of the Law Commission for two terms and was also a member of the committee on Criminal Justice Reforms. He is the one who set up National Law University, Bangalore introducing 5-year BALLB programme. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in the Lakhimpur Kheri case showed no confidence in the UP Judicial Commission constituted by the government of Uttar Pradesh to monitor the probe by SIT (Special Investigation Team) into the incident. To ensure there is no mix up of the evidence in the case, the SC is inclined to appoint a former judge of a different High Court to monitor this probe. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in Court on its own motion vs Commissioner of Police & Ors. issued summary of suggestions for increasing court security after the gun firing incident at Rohini Court. It includes digitalised ID cards for advocates, Commissioner of Delhi Police to frame a team for periodic security checks, no baggage inside court premises without proper scanning and more. Full Story

1. Recently released Tamil movie Jai Bhim is gaining popularity due to its real and social story. The theme of the movie rotates around police indiscipline. It is a courtroom drama based on a real-life case handled by a former judge of Madras High Court, Justice Chandru. He was an activist with the left movement for nearly 20 years. He says that if a lawyer understands politics, it will be easy for him to understand the working of law and the political machine that operates the law. He added in his interview that the reason for indiscipline is inherent in its colonial origin. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in State Of Kerala & Anr. vs M/S Popular Estates held that the intervention of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not merely called for because of a different view about the High Court’s judgment is possible. Even if two views are possible, the view was taken by the High Court being a plausible one, it would not call for interference by the Supreme Court. Full Story

3. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurpreet Singh and Others vs the State of Punjab held that “turban” is a religious symbol. Posting a video of a 65-year-old person without a turban being beaten up amounts to hurting the religious sentiments. Prima facie, the case is made out under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in Court on its own motion vs State said that the procedure of age verification of juveniles must be completed within 15 days from the date the Juvenile Justice Board issues directions for the same. The court also directed educational institutions and concerned authorities to help and aid in priority to the investigating officer in ascertaining the age. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in the State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Dr Saleem ur Rehman held that the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a substantive offence. If the investigation of an offence under the Act is coupled with a non-cognizable offence, then there is no need for sanction from the Magistrate to investigate for the same. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Atrey vs Union of India & Ors held that while adjudging the seniority of candidates selected in the same selection, placement in the order of merit can be adopted for determining seniority, but where selection has been done by different authorities, the principal of initial date of appointment may be valid in determining seniority. Full Story

3. While speaking at the inauguration of virtual courtrooms in Orissa, Justice DY Chandrachud said that virtual courts are the new symbol and image of the Indian judiciary. According to National Prisons Portal, around 5 lakh inmates are inside prisons as of today. We can make use of technology in court procedures. We can prevent delays in communication orders of bail. Technology is to make life simpler and not complicated. Full Story

4. While speaking at a book launch Finding a Straight Line Between Twists and Turns by Aseem Chawla, Justice Ravindra Bhat said that the retirement age for SC judges should not be more than 65 years. It is enough, I think, we too would like to rest, he added. Full Story

Diwali. Courts closed today.

1. The Supreme Court in Chairman, TANGEDCO vs Priyadarshini, held that the principle of preferential candidates would apply where there is a tie between a preferential candidate and a general candidate. And the person who is to be treated as a preferential candidate then can be given a mark over a general candidate. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Dayle De’Souza vs the Government of India held that the burden on the accused to prove his innocence under section 22C(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 shifts only when the prosecution has satisfactorily established the ingredients of this section. Else, the onus won’t shift. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Badrilal vs Suresh and Ors held that a will could be revoked by any agreement made after making of the will. It can be revoked only by the modes prescribed under section 70 of the Indian Succession Act. Full Story

4. The Chhattisgarh High Court in Dr Manish Tiwari vs the State of Chhattisgarh said that making a statement like, “Madam, if you want to take a leave, come and meet me alone” is not a sexually coloured remark. Such a statement would not attract section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, said High Court. Full Story

1. Yesterday, the National Investigation Agency convicted 9 persons as guilty of serial blasts at Narendra Modi’s rally in Gandhi Maidan, Patna, in the year 2013. Out of nine, four are awarded capital punishment (death penalty). Full Story

2. At the inauguration of virtual e-courts at Allahabad High Court, Justice DY Chandrachud said that delay in communicating bail orders is a serious deficiency in our criminal justice system. We are now working on strengthening the interoperable criminal justice system. Judges play a significant role in changing the mindset regarding the use of technology. Full Story

3. In Dinesh Mahajan vs Vishal Mahajan, the Supreme Court held that mere apprehension of threat to life is not sufficient ground to transfer a case under section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code, without lodging/filing a complaint or verifying the said ground. Full Story

4. The Karnataka High Court in Lokanath vs the State of Karnataka held that whenever a crime occurs, if the victim person is SC/ST, then every time provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be invoked unless the motive behind the crime is casteist. Full Story>

1. The Supreme Court judge Justice DY Chandrachud commented on a recent advertisement of Dabur, which showed a lesbian couple celebrating the sacred festival of “Karva Chauth”. The ad has to be withdrawn on the ground of public intolerance. On this, Home Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Narottam Mishra, opined that we might see two men taking “Feras” in the future. This is objectionable, he said. Full Story

2. Justice Chandrachud speaking on the Empowerment of Women through Legal Awareness by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), said that legal awareness of women’s rights is not merely a matter for women. The origin must be in the changing of mindset – both of men and women. True freedom for women is truly intersectional. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sunita held that it is not permissive to rewrite the contract while interpreting the terms of the insurance policy. The terms of the insurance policy have to be strictly construed. The accident benefit can be claimed only if the accident occurred when the policy was in force. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Bhoopendra Singh vs the State of Rajasthan and Anr held that it’s necessary to consider the seriousness and gravity of the crime. It is relevant to consider the role attributed to the accused while granting bail. Full Story

• October 2021 Law News
• September 2021 Law News
• August 2021 Law News
• July 2021 Law News
• June 2021 Law News
• May 2021 Law News
• April 2021 Law News
• March 2021 Law News
• February 2021 Law News
• January 2021 Law News
• December 2020 Law News

November 2021 – Law News for Students and Advocates
WritingLaw

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS

1. The Supreme Court in Mahendra KC vs State of Karnataka and Ors held that a person’s mental health cannot be compressed into a one-size-fits-all approach. Individual personality differences manifest as a variation in the behaviour of people. How an individual copes up with a threat – both physical and emotional varies greatly because of the multifaceted nature of the human mind and emotions. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Rashid Wali Beg vs Farid Pindari held that a suit for permanent injunction in respect of a Waqf property has to be filed before the Waqf Tribunal and not the civil court. And also, the Waqf Tribunal will have the power to issue temporary injunctions under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Full Story

3. The Allahabad High Court in Durgesh Tripathi @ Ram vs State of UP and Anr held that a 35-year-old widow lady must understand the repercussions of having premarital sex with an unknown person. The court granted bail to the man accused of establishing a physical relationship with her on the false pretext of marriage. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs District Magistrate, Jabalpur, held that failure on the part of the government to communicate a rejection of a detenu (a person held in custody) in a time frame is sufficient to vitiate (destroy the legal validity) the order of detention passed under the National Security Act. Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that authority making order shall communicate as soon as possible. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Sripati Singh (D) vs the State of Jharkhand held that the dishonour of cheques issued as security can also attract offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. To hold the cheque issued as security cannot constitute an offence. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey vs Union of India gave direction to Central Government for appointing special teachers to teach special children with special needs. The directions included special training for teachers and a comprehensive approach towards special students. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Hariram Bhambhi vs Satyanarayan held that as per section 15A of the SC/ST Act, issuing a notice of court proceeding to the victim or a dependant is mandatory. The purpose of section 15A is to protect the rights of victims and witnesses. The right to notice and to be heard should never be violated. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Arjun Gopal vs Union of India held that only green crackers are friendly and allowed on Diwali. There is no total ban on firecrackers, but the ones which are harmful and made of hard chemicals like barium must not be used. If any lapse on the part of the government is seen, then it would be viewed strictly. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Azham Jahi Mill Workers Association vs National Textile Corporation Limited held that the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is vested. The right gets violated when the equals are treated unequally. The right is enforceable against the state. Classification is permitted if valid and satisfies two tests. Firstly the distinguishing rationale has to be objective and secondly, there must be reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Full Story

2. The Delhi High Court in We are Sath vs Union of India held that whenever any offence is registered against any person, no relief can be granted without appreciating the facts of the case. If any foreign national is committing any offence under IPC or other Indian Law, there is bound to be an FIR or criminal proceedings against such foreign nationals. Full Story

3. Breaking: The Bombay High Court in Ship Drug Case granted bail to Aryan Khan and two other accused, namely Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha. Today, the High Court said that the case against the accused is not for consumption but conscious possession and plan to consume. Full Story

4. The Kerala High Court in Prajeesh PS and Anr vs the State of Kerala held that the applicants should not be denied anticipatory bail once the purpose of arrest and interrogation are fulfilled. Arrest and detention cannot be taken as a luxury for the prosecution. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Pegasus Spyware petitions quoted a famous line from the novel 1984, If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself. The court said members of civilised society have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Every citizen of India ought to be protected against violations of privacy. But any form of surveillance by agencies in the national interest is acceptable. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Sughar Singh vs Hari Singh held that the specific performance is no longer a discretionary relief. Section 10(a) added by the 2018 amendment may not be retrospectively applicable but can be a guide on discretionary relief. Full Story

3. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurmeet Singh vs Vipan Kumar held that senior citizens are entitled to get their cases decided on a preferential basis. The expeditious trial is the right of every litigant. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Dr UN Bora vs Assam Roller Flour Mills held that vicarious liability as a principle cannot be applied in a case of attempt. While dealing with a contempt petition, the court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the judgment which was allegedly violated. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Ramawatar vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that merely because an offence is covered under a special statute would not refrain any court or High Court from exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or section 482 of CrPC. Offences under SC/ST Act can also be quashed under section 482 CrPC and Article 142. Full Story

2. In K Ruban vs State, the Madras High Court held that the sexual offences are of such a nature that we cannot expect any independent or eyewitness for the same. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is cogent, reliable and trustworthy, then the same can be relied upon by the court. Full Story

3. In the Lakhimpur Kheri case, the Supreme Court has directed UP police to protect witnesses and record their statements under section 164 CrPC. The court also directed police to record statements in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate. If the Magistrate is unavailable for any reason, the concerned District judge can look into the matter. Full Story

4. On dismissal of the request of re-joining by a professor in Jamia Milia Islamia, the Delhi High Court in Moharram Ali Khan vs Jamia Milia Islamia and Ors held that once the resignation is accepted, it cannot be revoked by the person who has given it. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in N Jayasree vs Cholamandalam held that a dependant mother-in-law of a deceased person can maintain a motor accident claim petition. Though it is uncommon in Indian society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependant upon them for maintenance. But in certain cases, legal representatives can be given a wider connotation. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in District Bar Association vs Ishwar Shandilya and Ors held that the Advocates and Bar Association cannot pressurise a Chief Justice to change the roster of a judge. The Bench said it is nothing but coming in the administration of justice and pressurising the judge! Full Story

3. The Rajasthan High Court in Sunil Kallani vs the State of Rajasthan held that anticipatory bail application of a person already in custody in connection to a criminal case will not be maintainable concerning another criminal case registered for the commission of similar or different offences. Full Story

4. The Madras High Court in K Ruban vs State held that in cases of POCSO, we cannot expect eye witnesses as such crimes occur in isolation or when a child is alone. If evidence of the child is trustworthy, cogent, and inspires the court’s confidence, then it can be the sole basis of the conviction of the accused. Full Story

1. Today, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said that I am looking for a harmonious relationship between the judiciary, executive and legislature. Politics is the essence of democracy, but there is no politics when it comes to the judiciary. We have a responsibility in the government of India to ensure that the judiciary is not only given full support but also give space for the judiciary to become robust. Full Story

2. Today, Justice DY Chandrachud, on the live streaming of proceedings, said that citizens are entitled to know what goes on in the courts. It is the basic right of the citizens to know. The truth is one, but the paths to truth are many, he added. It is important to nurture the young members of the bar to look forward in the next 50 years to what lies in the store. Full Story

3. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions filed by NEET aspirants challenging the Centre’s decision to grant OBC reservations of 27% in the NEET-AIQ while stressing that the OBC candidates were denied thousands of seats in the NEET-All India Quota in the previous years. Full Story

4. In the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors., the Supreme Court has issued notice on the issue which raises the question of whether a consultant doctor can be discriminated against an employee doctor at the time of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a hospital. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Vaishno Devi Construction vs Union of India held that the explanation under Order 21 Rule 16 of CPC removed the distinction between an assignment prior to decree and an assignment post the decree. There is no bar under Order 21 Rule 16 against assignees who acquired rights before the passing of decree from making an application to execute the decree. Full Story

2. The Delhi Court in NIA vs Mohd. Salman and Ors. held that suspicion cannot substitute evidence. The court discharged four men under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act saying that when there is no evidence on record to show that funds were originated from a terrorist organisation, the court cannot proceed merely on suspicion. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in V Nagarajan vs SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. held that period awaiting the receipt of a free certified copy does not extend the limitation period under section 61(2) of the Indian Bankruptcy Code for the party who has not applied the same. The act for applying for a certified copy is not just a technical requirement but an act of diligence. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association Case said that it is unfortunate that the Supreme Court is called up to fill up the vacancies in tribunals. If the government does not want tribunals, then abolish the Act! It is not a happy situation for the judiciary to look upon this matter. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Prasad vs the State Of Bihar held that a person against whom proclamation has been issued and the proceedings under sections 82 and 83 of CrPC have been initiated is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Full Story

2. On resuming physical hearings today (21st October 2021) at the Supreme Court, Justice DY Chandrachud said it felt so lonely to see the screen every morning. We are happy to see you all. It is good to see again the crowded corridors and intellectual faces bringing joy and sunshine. Full Story

3. In an online lecture on the topic “Becoming an Advocate”, the Constitutional jurist Mr Fali S Nariman said that it is an unfortunate disease we are inflicted with. Young lawyers are suffering a lot due to the virtual functioning of courts. It would be so good if the court can as early as possible resume physical hearings. Full Story

4. Mumbai Court today extended the judicial custody of Aryan Khan till October 30. The order was passed by the Special Court of Sessions under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Full Story

1. The Bombay High Court in Subhash Mishrilal Jain vs Laxman Kondiba Aswar held that a mere allegation that the accused abused the complainant does not invoke section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 504 comes into play when it is an intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace. Full Story

2. The Kerala High Court in Unnikrishnan vs State of Kerala held that there cannot be any graver crime than a father committing rape with his daughter. When the protector himself has become a predator, then who shall protect, said court. Charged with raping a daughter under refuge and fortress is worst than the gamekeeper becoming a poacher and treasury guard becoming a robber. Full Story

3. The Madras High Court in State vs Earlam Periera set aside the acquittal of a school teacher for sexually assaulting a minor student of 4 years on the ground that a four-year-old child cannot be expected to give cogent (convincing) evidence regarding sexual assault. Full Story

4. The Karnataka High Court in Ezazur Rehman vs Saira Banu held that a Muslim ex-wife being unmarried is liable to be maintained by her husband beyond the Iddat period if she is not capable of maintaining herself. Dissolution of marriage does not per se annihilate all duties and obligations. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Shoraj Singh vs Charan Singh held that the purpose of providing a schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC, is to expedite and not scuttle the hearing. The court also said that period of 90 days for filing a written statement in civil suits is a directory. Full Story

2. The Delhi High Court in Abhishek vs NCT of Delhi held that the right to seek default bail under section 167(2) of CrPC is a fundamental right and not merely a statutory right. It is an indefeasible right of the accused. The court issued directions to ensure that custody of an undertrial must not extend mechanically. Full Story

3. The Kerala High Court in Safir vs Sajid explained the difference between Bond and Agreement. The court said that for an instrument to be a bond, a distinguishing feature must have been created in the instrument itself. Whereas the subsequent document giving the nature of the obligation and conditions of the contract shall be a mere agreement. Full Story

4. The Bombay High Court in Godrej Properties Ltd. vs Goldbricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. held that an arbitral tribunal cannot pass an ex-parte order merely on an interim application as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act mandates sufficient advance notice for any hearing. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Randheer Singh vs the State of UP held that there is no doubt that invocation of section 482 CrPC should be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure ends of justice. The purpose of section 482 CrPC is to ensure that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate weapons of harassment. Full Story

2. Justice Ravindra Bhatt, at the Fourth Round Table conference on the implementation of the Juvenile Justice System, said that “All the children in the child care institutions are not there for reasons of their own. If a child comes from a family where he sees that petty crime is the order of the day, he will follow it. In that case, we cannot find fault in the child. It is our job to restore the child with the rest of the world”. Full Story

3. The Madras High Court in Eternal Word Trust vs State of Tamil Nadu held that the protection of children is the paramount duty of the state. The interests of the minor can not at any stage be compromised. The court said that any type of negligence by authorities regarding children homes must be strictly viewed. Full Story

4. After a long litigious journey, the CBI court in CBI vs Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim ordered him to life imprisonment for the murder of one Ranjeet Singh. The Baba is already convicted for rigorous imprisonment for 20 years for the rape of two women. Full Story

1. The Karnataka High Court in Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust and State of Karnataka held that while taking cognizance of a private complaint under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code certain procedure has to be followed by the Magistrate. Even after following the procedure, if the Magistrate is not convinced about the sufficient material of taking cognizance, he may hold an inquiry or direct investigation under section 202 CrPC. Full Story

2. The Bombay Sessions Court in Asiya Anwar Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra upheld the two-year detention of an HIV prostitution victim, observing that she is likely to pose a danger to society as HIV can be easily transmitted through sexual intercourse. Full Story

3. The Bombay High Court in Devram Sawleram Mundhe vs the State of Maharashtra held that moral values are imparted and taught in schools as propounded by the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi then nothing to worry about students being adversely influenced by bars in their vicinity. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Progressive Schools Association vs the State of Rajasthan held that it is open to school management to initiate proper and necessary action for recovery of outstanding or due fees, if any. But if parents seek indulgence for just reasons, then the school may consider that request. Full Story

Dusshera today. Public holiday. Courts closed.

1. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed, held that the date of receipt of assessment order has no relevance in computing the limitation period for the revision by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Full Story

2. In the Cruise Ship Drug case, senior advocate Amit Desai who is appearing for Aryan Khan, said that none of the recoveries mentioned in the Panchnama was from Aryan. The lawyer said we adopt and believe in reformation. They are kids and not peddlers. They have learnt a lesson. Lets us not make them suffer. Full Story

3. The Kerala High Court again reiterated the sufferance of sexual assault victims. It is so bad to hear that a victim who is sexually assaulted gets harassed by police officials. Despite the guidelines to authorities, the things are not effectively implemented. The implementation of a victim compensation scheme and whether the procedure is followed properly or not, need to be given a close look. Full Story

4. The Central Government on Tuesday notified Medical Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Rules, 2021. The Act has allowed medical termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks in certain and special cases. The category may include sexual assault survivors, rape victims, minors and so on. And if the termination needs to do beyond 24 weeks, then the Act provides for the constitution of the medical board, which shall opine on it. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in K Anusha vs Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd, held that mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution does not in itself compose contributory negligence. For contributory negligence, some act or omission material to the incident must be present. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Dipali Biswas and Ors vs Nirmalendu Mukherjee and Ors held that the objections as to the method of execution must be raised in earlier rounds of litigation. The court does not help dormant people. Therefore a judgment debtor cannot be allowed to raise objections in instalments. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Ram Dattan (dead) by LRs vs Devi Ram and Ors held that there is no limitation in a usufructuary mortgage under section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act. Once a mortgage is always a mortgage, reiterated court. Full Story

4. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pankaj Rajput vs Kirti Rajput held that there is no need for a cooling-off period when there is no chance of settlement in the petition of mutual divorce under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. If the waiting period can prolong the matter and agony of parties, then there is no need for it, said the court. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Nasib Singh vs the State of Punjab held that retrial in a criminal case can be directed only under exceptional circumstances and not casually or normally. Reversing of the trial results in wiping of evidence taken on record. It is a complete U-turn that cannot be taken in general. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Nitaben Dinesh Patel vs Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel held that no relief can be claimed against a third party where the proceedings are going on between a husband and wife under Hindu Marriage Act. Amendment to any suit can be made when it becomes necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. Full Story

3. In Bechai (dead) vs Jag Ram, the Supreme Court held that a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is not maintainable against only a review order. Once the High Court has refused to entertain the review petition, there is no question of challenging the main order. Full Story

4. In an event organised by the Thane District Court, Justice Abhay Oka said that presently the Indian judiciary is facing a credibility crisis. Members of the legal profession should work towards restoring the faith of the country’s citizens. The legal work must be done uninterruptedly and without any flaws. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Prashant Singh Rajput vs the State of MP held that anticipatory bail granted by the court ignoring material aspects including the nature and gravity of the offence is liable to be cancelled. The court needs to be ensured that whether the correct principles for granting bail have been applied or not. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Sanatan Pandey vs the State of Uttar Pradesh held that the court shall not come to the rescue or help the accused who is not cooperating with the investigating agency and absconding in a case of non-bailable nature, and also when proclamation has been issued against him. Full Story

3. Followed by the dissatisfaction with the investigation done by UP police, the prime accused Ajay Mishra Teni’s son in the Lakhimpur Kheri case has been sent to police custody for three days by the Supreme Court. The CJI said that the case is of section 302 IPC, treat him the same way we treat other persons in other cases. Full Story

4. Justice Rohinton Nariman said to Supreme Court on Sunday to strike down the penal provision of sedition in IPC and the offending portions of the UAPA. He said that the sedition law was “set up by a colonial master to suppress free speech in a colony“, and it continued to be misused. There is a chilling effect on free speech. If you are booking persons, including journalists, under these laws, which come with large sentences and no anticipatory bail, people would not speak freely with their minds. Free speech is a fundamental right of all, including fair criticism. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in V Prabhakara vs Basavaraj K (Dead) by LR and Another held that excluding a sibling from a will does not create suspicion as to its genuineness. A testamentary court is not a court of suspicion but that of conscience. It has to consider relevant material instead of adopting ethical reasoning. It may create a suspicion if it is surrounded by other circumstances creating an inference. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Nasib Singh vs the State of Punjab held that a conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside merely on the ground that there was some possibility of a joint or separate trial. For setting aside, it is necessary to prove that the rights of the parties were prejudiced. Full Story

3. In Urvashi Aggarwal & Ors. vs Inderpaul Aggarwal, the Supreme Court held that ability and capability of the mother to maintain children does not absolve the father from his liabilities. The mother cannot be burdened with the entire expenditure. A father has an equal duty to maintain his children. Full Story

4. The Central Government has today approved the transfers of Chief Justices in 13 High Courts. The president exercising his power conferred under Article 143 is pleased to appoint the judges as Chief Justices of High Courts. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Action Committee Unaided Recognised Private Schools vs Justice For All held that if Article 21A, that is right to education, need become a reality, then the needs of the underprivileged section to receive online education cannot be denied. Their right must be protected. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in National Federation of Societies for Faster Justice and Ors. vs HC of Uttarakhand held that virtual hearing cannot be made a norm. This method of virtual hearing was adopted to meet the extraordinary crisis that emerged in the pandemic of COVID. The public has the right to witness the court hearing, as said in the Swapnil Tripathi case. Full Story

3. Central Bureau Investigation is not a solution to every problem, said Supreme Court in Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. The bench expressed dissatisfaction and unhappiness with the UP police investigation. The police have yet not arrested the prime accused and has only issued summons. Full Story

4. CBI court in CBI vs Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim held Ram Rahim guilty for the murder of Ranjeet Singh. The Baba is already convicted for 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the rape of two women. Now the court will hear the matter on October 12 for deciding on the sentence. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI said that if an accused charged for the non-bailable offence has not been arrested during the investigation, it would be contrary to the principle of granting bail to him for suddenly directing his arrest merely because the charge sheet has been filed. Full Story

2. No custodial interrogation is required in Cruise Ship Drug Case, said Bombay High Court. The court said now we do not want to inquire in knowing why police took so much time to investigate. Drug abuse is becoming like a malignant tumour, said Advocate Sethna on behalf of NCB. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in Estate Officer vs Colonel HV Mankotia (Retired) held that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits if no settlement or amicable resolution could arrive between the parties. If Lok Adalat fails in making parties reach a mutual solution, then it has to return the matter to the court. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in the Lakhimpur Kheri case asks the Uttar Pradesh government for a status report. The CJI termed the case as unfortunate and asked for actions taken after FIR, arrests made and of investigation how far done. Due to miscommunication, it has become a suo motu case, but we are looking towards it, said CJI. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Garg Builders vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited held that a lawful agreement to refer the matter to arbitration can be made a condition precedent before going to courts, and doing so does not violate section 28 of the Indian Contract Act. Full Story

2. If a woman is exercising her sexual autonomy through a wilful sexual relationship with her partner, then it cannot be presumed that she has given her consent for violating her reproductive rights. The exercise of a woman sexual autonomy does not give her partner the right to exploit her sexually. Full Story

3. The Karnataka High Court in the State of Karnataka vs Santhosh held that a person can be held guilty of rape only after examining all the witnesses as desired by the prosecution. If the trial court is erred (be mistaken or incorrect) on its part in examining, then the same conviction can be set aside by the appellate court. Full Story

4. The Delhi Court in State vs Gaurav Sahni held that mere use of abusive language does not amount to an assault. But if it is coupled with some gesture that can create apprehension in the mind of others that criminal force is about to inflict (cause something painful) on him, then it can be termed as assault. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Vipan Kumar Dhir vs the State of Punjab held that while granting bail to the accused, the accused’s conduct and gravity of the offence committed are considerable factors. It is essential to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster (support or strengthen) the administration of the criminal justice system, said the court. Full Story

2. The Delhi High Court in Sushil Kumar vs State denied giving bail to former Olympic wrestler Sushil Kumar in the Chhatrasal Stadium murder case. It was alleged that Sushil Kumar was the main culprit of the heinous crime. Therefore his bail plea stands rejected. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court for reservation in promotion in Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors, SLP of 2011, said that quantifiable data need to be placed before the court by the centre to show the adequacy of representation in reservations in promotion. The AGI made reliance on the BK Pavitra case that reservation in promotion is a matter of policy. It is the subject matter of the state government to decide. If the subjective satisfaction is tainted by illegalities, then it may be subject to judicial review opined AGI. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Geo Varghese vs the State of Rajasthan held that if a school teacher has reprimanded a student for his indisciplined act and as a result, he commits suicide, then the act of reprimanding cannot be alleged to be abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in K Karuppuraj vs M Ganesan held that the first appellate court must see all issues carefully and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. Non-compliance with Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC is not acceptable. Full Story

2. On the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti, the Chief Justice of Tripura High Court recited the Gandhian principles. He said that law must not only be validly framed but must also be a just law. The law itself is not enough. It must have the moral authority to rule. As Gandhiji always advocated a pragmatic approach to judging that do not just go by the letter of the law. Full Story

3. The Kerala High Court in Davis vs Hendry Thomas held that a son in law cannot have any legal right to the property of his father in law. And even if he has spent an amount on the construction of the building, it does not arise his legal right in the property. Full Story

4. The Madras High Court in G Devarajan vs The Secretary of Tamil Nadu held that if the cinema theatres prohibit the public from bringing their water bottles, then they must provide free and pure drinking water to the cinema-goers. Compelling cinema viewers to purchase water bottles at high rates is not reasonable. Full Story

Courts closed today.

1. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs Raj Gupta held that forcing a party to undergo a DNA test despite his unwillingness would amount to violating his privacy and personal liberty. The possibility of stigmatizing a person as a bastard, the ignominy (public shame and disgrace) that attaches to an adult, who in the mature years of his life is shown to be not the biological son of his parents may not only be a heavy cross to bear but would also amount to intruding his privacy. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in the Indian Institute of Technology and Ors vs Soutrik Sarangi and Ors held that alternate remedy does not bar the court in exercising the discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution. Article 136 is flexible and sufficiently broader to correct glaring errors and injustices. Full Story

3. The Bombay High Court held it is necessary to ensure that the dignity of a rape victim is not compromised under any circumstances. The line of cross-examination must not at any cost be exceeded. It is accepted that the accused has the right to conduct a cross-examination to prove his innocence, but the court must forbid any question insulting a rape victim. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs The State of Rajasthan held that the right of the accused to apply for bail is his fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21, which is also known as the golden triangle of the Constitution. Such a right cannot be taken away by any judicial order. Full Story

• September 2021 Law News
• August 2021 Law News
• July 2021 Law News
• June 2021 Law News
• May 2021 Law News
• April 2021 Law News
• March 2021 Law News
• February 2021 Law News
• January 2021 Law News
• December 2020 Law News

October 2021 – Law News for Students and Advocates
WritingLaw

CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS

1. Bombay High Court in Abhinav Kohli vs the State of Maharashtra held that the work commitment of a mother does not make her unsuitable for custody of her child. How much a parent has free time or can devote time for a child is not the sole basis for deciding custody and parenting. Love and affection of both parents are considered to be the basic human right of a child. Full Story

2. Until and unless all the evidence and witnesses are not examined, the accused’s guilt cannot be established. It can only be established after the whole examination process, said Karnataka High Court in the State of Karnataka vs Santhosh. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court in United India Insurance vs Sushil Kumar Godara held that there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance. If a vehicle was not registered, then the insurance company can deny the insurance claim on the occurrence of the incident. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth vs Chandra Prakash Jain held that whether an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has been filed within a limitation period or not surfaces the burden of proof on the financial creditor. But if any material has been put on record by the Corporate Debtor, then the court can examine that. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Suraz India Trust vs Union of India held that Article 129 of the Constitution makes the Supreme Court a court of record and gives the power to punish the contemnor for contempt of itself. The power to punish for contempt is constitutional and cannot be taken away by any legislative enactment. Seeing the contents of the contemnor, the last apology is no apology and cannot be a defence. Full Story

2. After the tragic event of the shooting in Rohini District Court, the lawyer in Rishi Malhotra vs Union of India moves to the Supreme Court to seek directions for a reduction in the physical appearance of undertrials in courts, claiming that it not only endangers the safety of lawyers, public and judicial officers but also gives criminals an opportunity to escape. Full Story

3. The Karnataka High Court in Husna Banu vs the State of Karnataka held that the mother’s right of breastfeeding the child is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The child’s right to breastfed is concurrent with the mother’s right to breastfeed the child. Based on their numerical abundance, children are not chattel for being apportioned between their genetic mother and a stranger. Full Story

4. Public Interest Litigation or Social Interest Litigation is not a pill for every ill said Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Nikhil Padha vs Chairman Human Rights Commission for reopening of certain commissions which were closed after scrapping of Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution. The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 10k for filing such a petition. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in the State of Bihar vs Arbind Jee held that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the employee had not even joined in service. This seniority benefit is calculated and enjoyed from the date after a person joins the service. To earn retrospective benefit would be erroneous in the eyes of the law. Full Story

2. No one is above the law, said Calcutta High Court in Humanity, Salt Lake & Anr vs State of West Bengal. The court quashed the allotment of the plot to former cricketer and BCCI President Sourav Ganguly for not complying with the process of law. The court always stands by the sportspersons who represent the nation at the world level, but everyone is equal when it comes to the law. Full Story

3. The Madras High Court, in a POCSO case, said that “gone are the days when children could be left with the relatives for care.” More than outsiders, the fear is of near and dear ones, said court. The children are not safe with their family members or relatives. No one can be trusted by, said court. Full Story

4. The tendency of guaranteeing the decision of the court in favour of one party or other amounts to malign a judge. It gives an impression that “Justice can be bought and Judges can be sold”, said Bombay High Court in Minol Anil Hudda vs the State of Maharashtra. Such vexatious attempts are rampant and have to be nipped in the bud. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in State of UP vs Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College held that there is no difference between minority and non-minority aided institutions. The right to get aid from the government is not a fundamental right. Protection cannot be expanded into a better right than one which a non-minority institution enjoys. A decision to grant aid is by way of policy and not a fundamental right to exercise or seek. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Mahadev Meena vs Raveen Rathore said that before granting bail to the accused, the court must consider the seriousness of the crime, the role of the accused in that crime, his position about the incident and to the victim and so on. Parity (comparison) while granting bail must not be misunderstood in relation to the other accused who has got bail. Full Story

3. The use of the term “irrevocably” in the Talaqnama does not make divorce invalid if the parties made the efforts for reconciliation. Talaq becomes irrevocable only after the expiry period of three lunar months, said Kerala High Court in A Sajani vs B Kalam Pasha. Full Story

4. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable only when an agreement for sale is valid in all respect. It must not be void. The agreement must be enforceable by law and must not fit or suit any condition laid down under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, said Kerala High Court in Ligy Paul vs Mariyakutty and Ors. Full Story

1. Our legal system fails to appreciate the realities existing in society. The judicial system must be people-friendly, said Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana. It is the call of the hour that legislature needs to revisit the laws made and reform them as per the needs of people. Most importantly, the legislature and executive should work in unison in realising the constitutional barriers. Full Story

2. Madras High Court in K Siva vs The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Pondicherry and Ors held that every citizen has a right to comment on governments’ policies and have their views concerning such policies. There is a difference between complaining and protesting, the bench added. Full Story

3. Kerala High Court in Abraham Thomas Puthooran vs Manju Abraham held that allegation of biasness against a judge must be construed from reasonable and justifiable grounds. It should not be based on mere speculation or assumption. The onus to prove is always on the person who alleges. To accept an allegation of bias without any substantial input puts the credibility of independence of the judiciary at stake. Full Story

4. Adjourning the cases has become a culture of our courts. It not only delays the procedure but also lowers the confidence of litigants in the justice delivery system, said Supreme Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs Gopal. The courts must change this culture of adjourning the cases. Anything which weakens the system and shakes the faith of a common man in the judicial system must be discouraged. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in National Highway of India vs Madhukar Kumar held that merely because reasons were not recorded, an administrative action of a public authority cannot be struck down. Where there is no such duty to record reasons, an action taken by authority cannot be invalidated. Full Story

2. Shocking!: Today District Court of Rohini, Delhi, witnessed a shocking moment in mid of hearing. Gangster Jitendra Gogi who had his hearing today in the court, was shot dead in a gun firing by two attackers who came in the attire of a lawyer. After the shot, the attackers were also shot dead by the police in a cross-firing. It is not easy to digest that such acts take place in the courtroom despite strict checking and vigilance. Full Story

3. In a courtroom discussion that a child cannot be forced to adopt or abandon moral and material abandonment, there was a question on the legality of a minor becoming Swami. So amicus curiae (friend of the court) in P Lathavya Acharya and the State of Karnataka said that there is no bar for a minor to become a “Swami”. Full Story

4. Kerala High Court in Rahul PR vs the State of Kerala held that just because the accused/rapist has settled to marry the victim, the proceedings cannot be quashed on that ground. And in cases of POCSO, the matter becomes more serious as it is against a minor. When the magnitude of the crime is grave, there exists no place of settlement. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Jamia Masjid vs KV Rudrappa held that a representative suit is binding on all the parties interested in it. If any judgment comes in a representative suit, it shall be binding on all the parties to the case. Therefore every party shall be barred by the principle of res judicata on filing subsequent suit. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in the Jamia Masjid case held that a plea of res judicata can be determined as a preliminary issue only when it involves adjudication of the question of law. Suppose there is any alteration in the circumstances after the coming of the decision in the first suit. In that case, it will require a trial to determine the plea of res judicata if any new fact arises that has to be proved. Full Story

3. The Delhi High Court in Samyak Gangwal vs Union of India held that the amount given in donation to the Prime Ministers citizen assistance and relief in emergencies fund does not go into the Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore it does not come under the fund of the Government of India. Full Story

4. Public morality cannot be allowed to overshadow constitutional morality, said Rajasthan High Court in Ganjendra Panwar vs Arun Kumar. There exists a duty of the state to protect all fundamental rights unless taken away by due process of law. Public morality cannot stand in the way of protecting live-in couples even if one of the partners is married to another. Full Story

1. In the case of Ranjit Rajbanshi vs State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court held that a voluntary joint act of sexual union will not be considered an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. According to the court, to convict a person for penetrative sexual assault, the psyche, maturity and previous conduct of both victim and accused is important. Full Story

2. In Chandan Banerjee & Ors vs Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors., the Supreme Court held that educational qualification will not be considered a valid ground for classification between persons of the same class in promotion matters. The court relied upon various judgements given by the apex court, including the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir vs Trilokinath Khosa. Full Story

3. In Union of India vs Dalbir Singh, the Supreme Court, while upholding the dismissal of a CRPF constable, observed that the burden of proof in the departmental proceedings is of probabilities of the misconduct and departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Md. Nawaz Khan observed that bail cannot be granted to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, merely on the absence of contraband supposed to be in possession of the accused person. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Rajendra Bajoria vs Hemant Kumar Jalan held that if the relief claimed by the plaintiff in a plaint cannot be granted as per law, then a court has to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. It has been held that such a suit has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing itself. Full Story

2. Astrological incompatibility is no excuse for a man accused of rape on the false promise of marriage, said Bombay High Court in Avishek Asit Mitra vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his words at the time of giving it. Full Story

3. The case relating to an attempt to murder cannot be quashed merely because parties have compromised. Attempt to murder is a heinous offence and such an offence is not only against an individual but society at large, said Delhi High Court in Mukhtiyar Ali vs State of NCT Delhi and Ors. Full Story

4. In Rohit vs the State of UP, the Allahabad High Court held that in every case of POCSO, if the accused applies for bail, then notice of the same must be given to the parent or guardian of the victim. Providing complete knowledge of judicial proceedings and participating in the same would be the right move in making the child and his family feel secure and safe. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Mahavir vs State of Madhya Pradesh said that there is no bar to impose concurrent life imprisonments on the accused convicted for the murder of more than one person. It is a policy that there cannot be consecutive life imprisonment one after the another, but here it is a case of concurrent life imprisonment. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Jagmohan Lal vs Doctor Girija Tiwari held that the concept of a joint Hindu family does not extend to the treatment of a pregnant sister-in-law. The Karta of a joint Hindu family cannot file a consumer complaint regarding a deficit in part of service by the doctor for the treatment given to his pregnant sister-in-law. Full Story

3. If any person fraudulently encroaches upon the temple land, then it is not only an offence against the temple, but a crime against society, said Madras High Court in K Senthilkumar vs The Principal Secretary of Government of Tamil Nadu. Even the active or passive contribution of the departmental officials cannot be ignored and have to be viewed seriously. Full Story

4. Raj Kundra (Businessman) has been granted bail in an adult video racket case by Mumbai District Court. The police claim that Kundra is one of the main culprits in the case. Certain emails, chats between the Kundra and other accused have been seized. But the plea contends that Kundra has been falsely implicated in the case by the police. For the reasons best known to the investigating agencies, he is being made a “scapegoat.” Full Story

1. In an event organised by the State Bar Council of Karnataka, the Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, said that the working of Indian courts and our justice delivery system does not sit well with the complexities existing in India. Some of our rules have still the shade of colonialism. It is the need of the hour that we Indianise our legal system. The courts need to be litigant centric as they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the justice delivery system. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in MA Khaliq vs Ashok Kumar held that if no case is registered against a person, then he cannot be summoned and detained. If the same happens, then it shall be violative of basic and natural principles of justice. Full Story

3. If the case relates to dowry death, then any secrecy or silence from house inmates or family members would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances, said Bombay High Court in Achyut Bhaskar vs the State of Maharashtra. Such type of crimes always takes place secretly and silently so the court must carefully look into such circumstantial facts. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Syed Afsar Pasha vs the State of Telangana held that a sale deed that is registered cannot be cancelled unilaterally by one party, and its cancellation can’t be a condition for anticipatory bail too. It ultimately affects the rights of adverse parties, said the court. Maintaining the balance between the rights of both parties is a must. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Neha vs Vaibhav Kumar said that a single-judge bench who is hearing transfer petitions cannot pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act by virtue of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order in want of justice. Full Story

2. The Bombay High Court in Gaurav vs the State of Maharashtra said that the offence of abetting by instigation depends on the intention (mens rea) of the accused and not on the actions of the victim. For a reasonable certainty to incite, the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. Full Story

3. It is an unfortunate situation that, as a society, we have failed to create an atmosphere where the primary caretakers of children can identify the signs of sexual abuse, said Bombay High Court. Sexual violence has no boundaries. And the most disturbing part is that the abuse occurs by such on whom the child trusts. It is such sad news for all of us as parents or aware citizens of this nation that a teen committed suicide due to the sexual harassment she faced by a close family member. Full Story

4. The Delhi High Court in Sushil Ansal vs State of NCT Delhi held that merely because a counsel in the particular case has changed, we cannot recall witnesses for cross-examination by the new counsel where the earlier counsel denied to cross-examine. Full Story

1. The Kerala High Court in Muhamed Ashraf vs Fasalu Rahman said that if any amendments have been made in the written statement, such statements won’t completely substitute or replace the admissions made earlier to that amendment. Full Story

2. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Navtej Singh vs the State of Punjab where the question under consideration was the couple’s age who, against their parents’ wishes, got married; the court held that the Aadhaar Card is not firm proof of age. We cannot solely rely on Aadhaar Card for confirming the age of the couple. Full Story

3. As per the recent survey of the National Crime Records Bureau, the crimes against women in Delhi has seen a decrease of 24% in comparison to crimes that took place in the year 2019. Similarly, Mumbai witnessed a decrease of 30% and the state of Uttar Pradesh by 17%. Whereas the city of Kolkata and Lucknow and the state of West Bengal saw a slight increase. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd vs M/s Ajay Sales and Suppliers held that the arbitrator in an arbitration case must be one who is independent and impartial. Features like non-independence and non-impartiality make an arbitrator ineligible. The court stated that the Chairman of a company in arbitration is ineligible to be an arbitrator. Full Story

1. As per section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof is upon the person who knows things. The Supreme Court in Nagendra Sah vs the State of Bihar said that when a case relies upon circumstantial evidence and the accused fails to put forth a reasonable explanation, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. But when such a chain is required to be established by the prosecution, then the failure on the part of the accused is not relevant. Full Story

2. The Supreme Court pointed out to the Attorney General that right from L. Chandra Kumar’s case, the court has been emphasising making an independent body for making appointments. The problem is that everyone is aware of the problem, but nobody wants to work on the solution. The independence of judicial tribunals is an inviolable (never to be broken) feature of the basic structure of the Constitution, added the court. Full Story

3. The Karnataka High Court in Dr Praveen vs Arpitha said that delay in considering perjury complaints is not good. They cant be deferred or delayed. Act of perjury is a serious and heinous crime in a civilised society. If such complaints are ignored, then the fountain of justice may get polluted. Full Story

Perjury means the offence of willfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.

4. Court is for delivering justice. It isn’t for political battles, said Bombay High Court in a plea against minister Anil Parab when the suspended officer asked the court for an independent probe into corruption allegations against Maharashtra Transport minister Anil Parab. Full Story

1. The Supreme Court in Arcelor Mittal Nippon Limited vs Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. observed that the bar under section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act operates only when the application under this section has not been entertained before the arbitral tribunal or the remedy under section 17 of the Act is inefficacious (not producing the desired effect). Full Story

2. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Alfaz Ali vs the State of Assam held that a sentence of life imprisonment means rigorous imprisonment for life. They both have to be equated. Full Story

3. In Amit Gulrajani vs the State of Haryana, Supreme Court held (and said to the child’s father) that a plea of habeas corpus cannot be filed against the mother who has custody of the child. The court questioned how a mother could be considered an illegal detainer. The CJI said that “it feels like because of your ego you want to kill the child in the battle of custody.” Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Director of Treasuries in Karnataka vs V Somyashree said that for the purposes of appointment on compassionate grounds in Karnataka Civil Services, the divorced daughter lies in the same category as of widowed or unmarried daughter. A compassionate appointment is an appointment of dependant made when a government servant dies during service or retires on medical grounds. Full Story

1. Long before the painful churning that took place in the subcontinent during the freedom struggle resulting in the framing of an egalitarian Constitution of India, Swami Vivekananda advocated secularism as if he foresaw the events to unfold. The CJI expressed his opinion on the day of the 128th anniversary of the historic Chicago address of Swami Vivekananda and said that the true essence of religion lies in the ability to promote tolerance and the common good. Full Story

For your info: Egalitarian means “believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.”

2. The Kerala High Court in Rajan vs the State of Kerala said that it is understood that the Magistrate has the power to reject a complaint at the onset. But if the court has dismissed a complaint at the pre-cognizance stage, then it should be treated as a rejection of the complaint and not a dismissal of the complaint. Full Story

3. The Supreme Court has asked the centre to revisit its decision for not including the deaths caused by suicide as COVID-19 death even if the reason supporting it was COVID only. The bench has also told the centre to look into the certificates that they have already issued to the deceased’s family members about the cause of death. Full Story

4. The Supreme Court in Singaram vs Ramanathan said that framing the question of law in a second appeal is not just a formality but a mandatory thing. The limitation on the power exercised by the High Courts in the second appeal with the judgment of the first appellate court is based on high public policy. Full Story

1. As per Hindu Succession Act, if the wife gets remarried, she ceases her rights from her deceased husband’s property. But the Bombay High Court explained the phrase “on the date succession opens” and said that if the wife is unmarried on the date when succession opened, then she is entitled to her deceased husband’s property. Full Story

2. It is the need of the hour to build a National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation to strengthen our Indian Judicial Infrastructure. The corporation must be socially responsible and guided by the principle of inclusive infrastructure, said Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana. We must admit that we have neglected and failed to focus on providing good infrastructure in court after the Britishers left. Full Story

3. The past year has led us to face many challenges and difficulties in the processing system. The mode of online hearing and virtual appearance has made the Supreme Court of India a National Court of Virtual Hearings, said Justice D. Y. Chandrachud. We have entered into an era of digital copies, hearings, electronic case filing and many other such facilities. It is something good which time has made us. Full Story

4. Bank account of a person who is accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be ceased or frozen as per section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, said Supreme Court in Ratan Babulal Lath vs The State of Karnataka. Full Story

1. Existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Courts from maintaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, said Supreme Court. A writ petition can be entertained when there is a breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural principles of justice, an excess of jurisdiction or when there is a challenge to the vires (powers) of delegated legislation. Full Story

2. In Mamta Tiwari vs the State of MP, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that where a person on seeing an act to attempt rape of a minor child, does not inform the police and merely requests the accused not to commit rape of a minor child, commits an offence of abetment by aiding, which is punished under sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act. Full Story