Author: Jigeesha Vaishnav

Jigeesha Vaishnav is a second-year B.Com. LL.B (Hons.) student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad. With a genuine curiosity for the complexities of law, Jigeesha enjoys exploring the diverse intersections of legal principles.
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies that Enablement Clauses are not Arbitration Agreements under Section 7, Redefining Threshold of Referral to Arbitration

In BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., the Supreme Court said that enablement clauses, those containing words like “may” are not binding arbitration agreements within the meaning of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Rejected the appointment of arbitrator by the Calcutta High Court, and said that only unambiguous mandatory words generate enforceable arbitration agreements. This ruling improves contract drafting norms and restricts court’s referral powers to prima facie inquiry under Section 11.

byJigeesha Vaishnav
Supreme Court

Supreme Court eliminates harsh censure of District Judge and imposes judicial restraint and procedural justice for denigration of lower judiciary

In Kaushal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court invalidated defamatory comments of the Rajasthan High Court against a District Judge who had granted bail, holding that these strictures in the absence of hearing are against natural justice and judicial independence. The Court repeated that criticising subordinate judges should be dealt with administratively, not judicially. It reiterated the requirement of procedural fairness, judicial restraint and made it clear that guidelines for bail are advisory, not obligatory.

byJigeesha Vaishnav
Supreme Court

Court Restores Section 319 CrPC Summoning Power and Emphasizes Obligation to Put All Guilty on Trial

In Shiv Baran Vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court upheld a trial court’s directive issuing a summon to an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, underlining the fact that plausible evidence at trial, e.g., consistent eye-witnesses can support adding an individual to the trial even if being left out in the chargesheet. The Court deprecated the interference by the High Court, making it clear that Section 319 gives courts jurisdiction to thwart guilty individuals from going scot-free because of investigative failures and needs to be applied with judicial prudence.

byJigeesha Vaishnav
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Free Power Duties Over Statutory Limit, Giving Primacy to Regulator

In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. JSW Hydro Energy Ltd., the Supreme Court held that a contractual commitment of supplying 18% free power to the State is not affected by the CERC’s 13% tariff ceiling. The Court made it clear that the cap is valid only for tariff calculations and does not prevail over freely negotiated terms. It underlined regulatory primacy, sole jurisdiction of CERC/APTEL, and declined High Court interference. The ruling protects contractual freedom and regulatory discipline in the electricity industry.

byJigeesha Vaishnav
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Entry Tax Liability on Liquor Manufacturers: Who is the “Dealer” for Purposes of the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act?

In M/S United Spirits Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that liquor manufacturers are responsible for payment of entry tax under the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act, even if they supply goods to government warehouses. The Court held that manufacturers “cause entry” of goods for sale and maintain control until the goods arrive at retailers’ hands. Government warehouses are only intermediaries and not dealers. The ruling makes clear dealer liability in compliant commodity chains and thwarts abuse of procedural arrangements to avoid tax.

byJigeesha Vaishnav
Supreme Court

SCReiterates Pleader’s Mandatory Obligation to Report Client’s Death: Order XXII Rule 10A CPC accorded Priority over Formalities

In Binod Pathak & Ors. Vs. Shankar Choudhary & Ors., the Supreme Court emphasized the statutory obligation of the pleaders under Order XXII Rule 10A CPC to report the death of a client. It held that defaults of procedure should never defeat substantive justice, particularly such defaults resulting from mala fide silence. Revoking the order of the Patna High Court, the Court held that no one shall profit from their own iniquity, upholding fairness and moral legal practices.

byJigeesha Vaishnav
Current Legal Update

Massive Judicial Reshuffle: President Appoints 5 New Chief Justices, transfers 4 CJs and 19 Judges on SC Collegium’s Advice

The President of India appointed new Chief Justices to five High Courts and transferred four others, alongside relocating 19 High Court judges. This is based on the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendations. This major reshuffle, grounded in Articles 217 and 222 of the Constitution and aims to ensure efficiency, uphold judicial independence and reduce pendency. The move reflects ongoing reforms in judicial administration, balancing transparency, regional equity and institutional integrity amid growing demands for timely justice.

byJigeesha Vaishnav
Current Legal UpdateHigh court

Andhra Pradesh High Court Blocks CBI Director’s Unauthorized Officer Appointment in Tirupati Laddu Probe

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the CBI Director had gone against Supreme Court orders in appointing an officer from the previously disbanded SIT to the current Tirupati laddu probe. The Court granted a writ petition by accused Kaduru Chinnappanna and directed the probe be done only by the reconstituted SIT, in accordance with the Supreme Court. This decision enforces judicial control over investigation processes and maintains the precedence of ensuring compliance with apex court orders in sensitive public issues.

byJigeesha Vaishnav
Uncategorized

Supreme Court Upholds Legality of Arrest in Andhra Pradesh Liquor Scam Case

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the arrest of the son of the appellant in the Andhra Pradesh liquor scandal case, holding that the authorities had adhered to constitutional protections. The appellant had contended that the arrest did not involve proper communication of reasons, contravening Articles 21 and 22. Relying upon Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, the Court reaffirmed that the arresting officers had given adequate information. It rejected the appeal and reaffirmed that arrests need to meet the test of meaningful communication and procedural fairness.

byJigeesha Vaishnav