Author: Gude Shravya

Gude Shravya is a legal researcher with an interest in IPR and corporate law. She is LLM student at National Law Institute University, Bhopal. She is focussed on studying legal issues that affect society and policy. Gude Shravya is passionate about using legal research to support justice, awareness, and reform.
Column

The Waqf ( Amendment ) Act, 2025: Balancing Tradition and Transparency

Waqf Amendment Act 2025, also known as UMEED Act, passed in the Parliament in April 2025, proposes significant changes to the governance and management of Waqf properties in India. This legislation seeks to amend the Waqf Act of 1995, aiming to enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the administration of Waqf properties while addressing long-standing issues within the system.

byGude Shravya
Current Legal Update

Over 2,000 advocates demand urgent judge appointments, end to ‘judge-son’ nexus

In a sweeping call for systemic overhaul in judicial appointments, more than 2,000 advocates have backed a requisition seeking the immediate filling up of approximately 283 vacant high court judges’ posts, including 35 (now 26 after oath of 10 judges on August 4) in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, warning that judicial delays, institutional favouritism, and in-breeding are threatening the credibility and independence of the higher judiciary.

byGude Shravya
Current Legal Update

State bar council issues notices to 16 lawyers over alleged bench hunting

The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has issued notices to 16 lawyers—including some senior advocates—for allegedly “bench hunting,” or trying to get cases heard by judges they think will rule in their favour.
This all ties back to a high-profile corruption case involving Gurugram realtor Roop Bansal and former CBI judge Sudhir Parmar, where lawyers are accused of manipulating which judge would hear the case.

byGude Shravya
Supreme Court

Court of Session can summon person to stand trial even if he isn’t charge-sheeted.

Coming back to the facts of the case, the Court said that it is absolutely incorrect on the part of the counsel to assert that the Petitioner could have been summoned as an accused only during the course of trial under the provisions of Section 319 CrPC. “Section 319 CrPC stands absolutely on a different footing. … The matter may equally be examined from one another angle. For a moment one may leave the procedural provisions altogether apart. On larger principle, one can see no adequate reason to fetter and shackle the power of a superior court like that of the Court of Session from summoning a person as an additional accused to stand trial when, on the materials before it, it is satisfied that there exists a conclusive or, in any case, a prima facie case against him”, it added. The Court, therefore, summarising the following points of conclusion – (i) Both under Sections 209 and 193 respectively of CrPC commitment is of, the ‘case’ and not of the ‘accused’ as distinguished from Section193(3) and Section 207A respectively of the old Code where commitment was of the ‘accused’ and not the ‘case’. (ii) Section 319(4)(b) enacts a deeming provision in that behalf dispensing with the formal committal order by providing that the person added will be deemed to have been an accused even when cognizance was taken first. (iii) Once the Court takes cognizance of the offence (not of the offender), it becomes the Court’s duty to find out the real offenders and if it comes to the conclusion that besides the persons put up for trial by the police some others are also involved in the commission of the crime, it is the Court’s duty to summon them to stand trial along with those already named, since summoning them would only be part of the process of taking cognizance. Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP, upheld the High Court’s Order, directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within 6 months, and directed the Registry to circulate one copy each of the Judgment to all the High Courts.

byGude Shravya