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
3. The state must protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Merely because a girl is minor, of age 17 years staying in a live-in relationship, which is not a marriageable age as per law, would not deter her from getting the protection of life and liberty from the state, said High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Mamta and Anr vs State of Punjab. Full Story
4. In Reena Chadha and Anr. vs Govt. of NCT Delhi, the Delhi High Court said that the parties don’t need to be physically present for registration of marriage. Both the parties can be virtually present before the magistrate in video conferencing. Personal appearance does not necessarily mean physical appearance. Full Story
1. In Sadique vs the State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021, the Supreme Court said that in UAPA cases, the Magistrate cannot extend the time to complete the investigation. The only competent authority to consider such extension would be “the court” as specified in the proviso in section 43-D(2) (b) of the UAPA. Full Story
2. Under section 103 of the Civil Procedure Code, where the High Court has the power to determine issues of fact, such factual review is limited under this section, said Supreme Court. There is no prohibition on entertaining a second appeal, even on a question of fact if it involves non-consideration of relevant evidence. Full Story
3. If any person is found indulging in manual scavenging work or cleaning the sewers, then the head of that Municipal area shall be responsible for it, said Madras High Court. It is heartening news that no further death of any cleanliness worker is reported. The Municipal Corporations shall ensure that no manual scavenging activity takes place in their respective areas. Full Story
4. Freezing the bank accounts of a suspect who is being investigated under an online fraud case violates his right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, said Karnataka High Court in the case titled Narayan Yadav and State of Karnataka. Freezing of accounts is not an issue, but as a consequence, it is adversely impacting the suspect’s life, which is of great concern. Full Story
1. Reforms cannot happen in one day. We understand, but we want to see the progress of women appearing for the National Defence Academy, said Supreme Court. The armed forces are required to do more towards gender equality. Unless and until we keep a dynamic approach towards this, the progress which we aim will remain a dream or wish only. Full Story
2. It is happy news for the legal fraternity that Mr Prashant Kumar, President of Bar Council of India, has been elected to the International Legal Assistance Consortium’s Board of Directors. He is the second Asian to be on the board of ILAC. Earlier, he was the President of LAWASIA. Full Story
3. The court must be cautious when the matter relates to sexual harassment or marriage done under coercion or threat, says Allahabad High Court. The courts need to see that under the garb of personal liberty of one, the victim’s personal liberty is not offended or under the allegation of marriage with her, she is not used as a shield to escape from his liabilities. Full Story
4. Presumption of innocence ceases once the trial court convicts the accused, said Supreme Court. Therefore, the High Court must not be very liberal in granting bail to such an accused person in the pending appeal. The court also added that the judgment should be coherent (logical and consistent). It must be written in such a way that it depicts the righteous and judicious approach of a judge. What the court says and how it says are equally important. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in M/s INDSIL Hydro and Manganese Ltd. vs the State of Kerala explained the difference between tax and royalty. The court narrated that royalty has its source in the agreement entered into by the parties and is a benefit that is vested on a grantee. On the other hand, tax is imposed under statutory power without giving any special benefit to the taxpayer. Full Story
2. Unless any statute expressly authorises, the rule or any law cannot be applied retrospectively, said Supreme Court in Assistant Excise Commissioner Kottayam and Ors vs Esthappan Cherian and Anr. If there is any clear or manifest intention to the contrary, then it can apply retrospectively and otherwise not. Article 20(1) clearly restricts the retrospective application of the law. Full Story
3. A citizen cannot be subjected to externment (banishment) for raising his grievance against the government, said Gujarat High Court. The court quashed the order by Asst. Commissioner of Police for exiling a man from several districts for demonstrating against CAA/NRC. Full Story
4. When the defendant raises a cloud over the plaintiff’s title, a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. The suit for a permanent injunction without seeking a declaration of the title when the plaintiff’s title is disputed is not tenable. The question of injunction cannot be decided if the title is not clear or under a cloud, said Supreme Court. Full Story
1. In Munawwar Rana vs the State of UP, the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the FIR against Urdu poet Munawwar Rana for comparing Valmiki (composer of the sacred Ramayana) to Taliban. The bench observed that Rana’s irresponsible and unnecessary comparison has hurt the sentiments of the majority community. Full Story
2. The Kerala High Court in Kitex Garments Limited vs the State of Kerala said that those who pay for the Covishield vaccine have the right to get the 2nd dose even before the 84-day interval specified by the government. The court directed that changes be made to the CoWIN portal. Full Story
3. In Dhanya Martin vs the State of Kerala, the Division Bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath observed that in this age of evolving technology, marriage under the Special Marriage Act could be registered via video conference. The court also asked that things like registration of marriage and divorce can be made online, which will be easier. Full Story
4. The Karnataka High Court in Amalapooh Mary and Ors vs V Ravindra and Anr held that courts need not obtain the parties consent to refer matters to Lok Adalat or Mediation as per section 89 of the Civil procedure Code, 1908. Further, the court added that if parties do not appear for mediation, the courts can act under Rule 13 of the Mediation Rules of 2005 plus impose costs that compel the attendance of the concerned parties. Full Story
1. After 75 years of independence, we at least expect 50% representation of women at all levels. But we have hardly achieved 11% of the representation. In some states, there is a reservation policy, so there might be adequate representation of women. Still, the truth is that the legal faculty needs to welcome women into its fold, said Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana. Full Story
2. The provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 can be applied retrospectively to the Benami transactions which the parties made before the coming of this Amendment Act, said Madras High Court. The court explained that the legislature intends to ensure the pre-amendment Act remains in force for all the purposes and amendments are to make the legislation more effective. Full Story
3. The unborn child gets into life when it transforms into a foetus, said Kerala High Court. An unborn child also has its rights. The right to the life of the unborn can be equated with the fundamental right of the mother guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court in the case held that if terminating (aborting) a baby results in an alive baby, then the weightage shall be given to the right of the unborn-to-be-born instead of the reproductive choice of the mother. Full Story
4. Regarding young lawyers as the frontline of the legal system, the Chief Justice of India, in an event organised by the Bar Council of India, said that young lawyers must never forget the noble values of this profession. He said that lawyers are by birth leaders, and they must actively participate in societal problems. Lawyers are much respected by the public because of their contribution and presence in social movements. So it becomes the duty of every lawyer to uphold the dignity of the institution. Full Story
1. To show sympathy is not the rule of law, yet the law has to be benevolent to sub-serve the interests of justice, said Gujarat High Court. Depression can be considered a serious illness in the context of COVID in the case where a student failed to appear in the examination for admission due to depression and suicidal thoughts. It is reasonable to believe that a student must have been through negativity during COVID. Full Story
2. It is glad to know from the survey that since 1950, no distinguished jurist has been appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court by the President of India. Article 124(c) of the Constitution gives power to the President to appoint a distinguished jurist as a judge of the Supreme Court. On this, Prof. Upendra Baxi said that Presidents have been looking with a telescope for the past 67 years and have not found any jurist worthy. So jurists don’t exist in India. Hence it is a dead issue. Full Story
3. If the courts keep delaying matters on technical grounds, then the people will lose faith in the judicial system. Already they have very little faith in the system due to the long pendency of cases, said Kerala High Court. The purpose of the law is to uphold the righteousness of justice and not to uphold the technicalities that emerge. Lawyers may have hundreds of reasons for the delay, and so does the government institutions in passing orders. But it is for the judge to see and scrutinise well all things. Full Story
4. The Bombay High Court in Marathi Prakashak Parishad vs Government of India & Ors said that the sale of books is an essential and necessary service during the period of COVID and lockdown. It is an integral part of the right to life with dignity. During a pandemic, people undergo depression and anxiety, and there the books help in diverting the mind of people and gives them a sense of relaxation. Full Story
1. The repeated inquiry into caste certificates can only be done when there is a case of fraud or where the document issued was issued without proper inquiry. Repeated verification of caste certificates is detrimental (harmful) to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes members. The scrutiny committee must ensure and avoid the repetition of inquiries. Full Story
2. Social media companies listen only to powerful people and not to common people, observes CJI N.V. Ramana on Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind vs UOI. Twitter, Facebook or YouTube never respond to us. They hold no accountability to us. They are only worried about powerful men. The platforms only give communal colour to the news, and it ultimately tarnishes the country’s image. Many news is seen to be planted and is even fake. Full Story
3. Simply because the High Court refers to some facts of the case to determine the question of law in the second appeal does not mean that the facts and evidence have been re-appreciated, said Supreme Court. Question of law for consideration will not arise in abstract but in all cases emerge from the facts peculiar to that case. And there cannot be any straight-jacket formula for this. Full Story
4. Reasons are the live chains (links) between the mind of the decision taker to the question in dispute and the conclusion he arrived at. Reason and application of mind are impermeable for a judicial order to strengthen the scrutiny of law. When an investigating officer files a B-summary (where no evidence is found against the accused) report to the magistrate, the magistrate must scrutinise it well before rejecting it, said Karnataka High Court. Full Story
1. It is well understood that when the culture of a country and its faith gets hurt, the country becomes weak, said Allahabad High Court. The court opined that the cow should be declared a national animal and its protection must be inculcated as a fundamental right of the Hindus. The right to life is above the right to kill, and the right to eat beef can never and should not be considered a fundamental right. Full Story
2. Karanataka High Court has allowed bull racing on customary beliefs but on the ground that necessary steps shall be taken by the state government to ensure that animals are not treated with cruelty or any kind of inhuman treatment is done with them. The court said that the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the Shivajirao Adhalrao Patil case must be strictly adhered to and no negligence shall be entertained in respect to that. Full Story
3. If during the investigation of the offence of rape at the crime scene the condom is found, that does not mean that the act of sex was consensual between the accused and the victim, says Bombay High Court. It may be because the accused wanted to prevent himself from further complications. So the possibility of condoms cannot be related solely to the fact of consensus by the victim. Full Story
4. In a petition filed by the mother in Jammu and Kashmir High Court for recovery of the infant child from the father, the court said that breast milk is the natural and perfect mixture of every nutrient which a child requires for proper growth. Breastfeeding has also been linked to a higher intelligence quotient in later childhood. The court, therefore, directed the SSP to take necessary measures and ensure the recovery of a female child from the father within 24 days. The child must remain with the mother for early-stage nourishment added court. Full Story
- August 2021 Law News
- July 2021 Law News
- June 2021 Law News
- May 2021 Law News
- April 2021 Law News
- March 2021 Law News
- February 2021 Law News
- January 2021 Law News
- December 2020 Law News
- Article 334A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
- Article 332A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
- Article 330A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
