Keeping Pace with Legal Change
On April 29, 2025, in a path-breaking order, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the summons of nine policemen in the alleged Verka encounter killing of Mukhjit Singh, and reinstated proceedings against the Deputy Commissioner of Police by holding that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not necessary.
In Criminal Misc Application No. 118 of 2025, Uttarakhand High Court quashed the order of summoning Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. on the grounds of procedural lapses, limitation, no specifically made allegations under the Drugs Act, and no required forensic evidence.
Significance and ImpactThe ruling of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP-19578 of 2023 illustrates the manner in which courts exercise equilibrium amid formalities of law and social justice. The judgment, in allowance of compassionate appointment of a second wife within the service rules, emphasizes equity, principles of nomination, and dependency safeguard.
This article discusses the decision of the Bombay High Court in TikTok Limited vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, in which the request to declare TikTok a well-known trademark was denied because it posed a threat to national security. The case brings out the issue of intellectual property law and national interest.
It was decided by the Supreme Court in the case Sachin v. State of Maharashtra that an accused person cannot be made worse off for appealing a conviction that they have already been found guilty of. Increasing the severity of punishment in such appeals is a violation of both procedural fairness and natural justice, particularly when the state does not oppose the decision.
The Supreme Court of the United States addressed the legal repercussions of consent decrees in family division cases in this significant decision. The court reaffirmed that after such decrees have been issued, they cannot be challenged via a new litigation and must only be opposed through recall processes.
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of B.S. Yediyurappa v. A. Alam Pasha, thoroughly investigated the intricate relationship that exists between Sections 17A and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court investigated whether or not there is a need for previous punishment prior to conducting an inquiry into public personnel.
After the first SLP contesting the same High Court order was rejected, the Supreme Court of India conducted an investigation into the wrongdoing of counsel who had filed a second SLP challenging the same verdict. Although there was a difference of opinion over the harshness of penalty, the court placed an emphasis on the responsibilities of advocates, the significance of ethical behavior, and the consequences of incorrectly employing legal procedures.
In the case of Adavya Projects v. Vishal Structurals, the Supreme Court made it clear that the failure to serve Section 21 notice does not impede impleadment in arbitration provided the parties accepted to the arbitration agreement. This decision highlights the fact that the jurisdiction of the tribunal is derived from consent rather than from compliance with the procedures.
Ayyub Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh was a case in which the Supreme Court of India directed the trial court to file charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in a case involving a possible honor killing. The ruling places an emphasis on adequate judicial review throughout the stage of charge construction, which is based on evidence that seems to be prima facie.
