Keeping Pace with Legal Change
A major milestone was when Enforcement Directorate recalled a summons issued to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal on the ground of supposed irregularities in the ESOP allocation by Care Health Insurance Ltd. The move highlights the provision of security to protesters the section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
In a classic case, the Supreme Court set aside criminal cases against distant relatives, who had been falsely dragged into a dowry harassment case. The ruling adds strength to the point that general and lackluster claims of criminality are not sufficient to allow trial that will weaken innocent family members against the frivolous use of the law.
In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a penalty imposed on a senior retired Assistant Engineer, Ram Prakash Singh, under Rule 27 of Tripura Administrative Services Rules on procedural lapse and violation of due process, leaving it clear that departmental inquiry is subject to strict adherence to due process which entails production of evidence, timely conclusions and fair hearing opportunities.
The Supreme Court set aside the rejection of Maharana Pratap Singh on basis of denial of due process, broad allegations and absence of fair inquiry. It gave rewards to compensation, stating that the, due process, and following natural justice is an imperative in departmental exercises of discipline.
The Supreme Court in this case clarified that a person not party to a document is not obligated to seek its cancellation. It restored the plaintiff’s title based on a valid gift deed, setting aside the High Court’s erroneous interpretation of Section 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
The Supreme court in a landmark decision dissolved the marriage of a couple who had been separated for more than ten years saying irretrievable breakdown was a valid ground to grant divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution. The case shows that the Court, as an arm of the constitution, has the right to give full justice when there is no statute on the matter.
In Chellammal & Anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Supreme Court reviews the fundamentals of jurisprudence regarding sentencing, which lacks a mention of the legal obligation imposed on the courts to seek probation. The case enriches our knowledge of Section 498A IPC and the Probation of offenders Act 1958.
In April 22, 2025, in a landmark case, the Supreme Court observed medical negligence conviction against Kamieni Hospitals but downsized the monetary award to 10 lakhs instead of 15 lakhs which struck balance between culpability of medical institutions and reasonable recompense to sufferers, a family.
On April 22, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a strong judgement that confirmed medical negligence case against Kamieni Hospitals and awarded only 10 lakh rupees to the affected family out of the 15 lakh rupees claimed to maintain the balance between corporate liability of medical institutions and proper redress to the sufferers.
In this historic decision, the Supreme Court made it clear that those who are on deputation are still under the protection of section 197 of CrPC and cannot be charged without such a sanction and the important constitutional protection is intact.
