Keeping Pace with Legal Change
Online applications are being accepted by the Supreme Court of India for a total of twenty Junior Court Assistant-cum-Junior Programmer vacancies and six Senior Court Assistant-cum-Senior Programmer positions. The application deadline for Indian citizens is the 27th of June, 2025. Interviews, written examinations, and practical aptitude tests are all components of the selection process.
This article talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the acquittal of a government official accused of bribery. The court reinstated the trial court’s conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concentrating on the legal principles and evidence issues at hand.
On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court made a very important decision that cleared K. Shikha Barman of all charges. The court found that there were serious mistakes in the way the case was handled and that the wrong person had been identified under the NDPS Act. The Court stressed that the prosecution did not show the defendant’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
This article talks about the Supreme Court’s decision in Nafees Ahmad v. Soinuddin, which makes the meaning of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC clearer. The Court said that significant conformity, not absolute adherence, is enough for crafting an appellate judgment.
The Supreme Court found in favor of the victim’s family in a road accident claim, turning down the insurance company’s argument that the victim was partly to blame. The Court agreed with the High Court’s judgment to hold the truck driver and insurance company fully responsible.
The Supreme Court said that the truck driver and his insurer, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., are fully responsible for a deadly car collision. They did not accept the argument that the driver was partially at fault. The Court made it clear that vehicle owners and insurers are responsible.
The Supreme Court used its extraordinary power under Article 142 to end the marriage of R. Annamalai and Lalitha Subanam since it couldn’t be fixed. Even if mediation didn’t work, the court made sure that both sides got justice by giving them money and putting an end to the case.
In Sushila & Others vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court made it clear that criminal cases under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot go forward without specific and credible accusations. The case represents a big step toward stopping the misuse of marriage rules.
The Supreme Court said that state governments can’t invalidate Form C under the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956. It said that Rule 17(20) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules is not legitimate because it goes against Central Rules. The decision keeps the federal balance in taxes.
The Supreme Court said in the case of Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh that civil problems like breach of contract cannot be considered criminal cheating unless there is proof that the person who broke the contract was dishonest from the start.
