Supreme Court Rejects Lalu Prasad Yadav’s Plea to Delay Land for Jobs Trial
The Supreme Court of India has turned down a legal petition filed by the head of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD)…
Category: Uncategorized
Supreme Court Delivers Key Ruling on Fraudulent Property Claims: Civil Appeal Allowed, Writ Petition Dismissed in Vishnu Vardhan Case Bench Led by Justice D. Datta and U. Bhuyan
TRecently, the Supreme Court of India gave an important ruling in a complicated land case at the Civil Appeal No.…
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.
Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of Police Constable for Habitual Unauthorized Absence, Cites Need for Discipline in Force
In Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs Udai Singh, the Delhi High Court upheld the termination of a constable who had been taking unauthorized leave repeatedly over the course of many years. Despite producing medical certificates, the Court held them vague and without corresponding procedures. It held habitual absenteeism in disciplined services such as the police as habitual misconduct. Overriding the CAT’s reinstatement order, the Court underscored the supremacy of discipline and strict adherence to leave procedures in police forces.
Shame on Pakistan Supreme Court, shame on Lahore High Court Bar Association By Justice Katju
Ahmadiyyas are a tiny community of about 5 million in Pakistan ( which has a total population of about 240 million…
The Case That Made Courts Rethink Criminal Evidences
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court set out the five golden principles for relying on circumstantial evidence in criminal trials, stressing that every link in the chain must be conclusively established and exclude all reasonable doubt, ensuring that conviction is based only on evidence that points solely to the accused’s guilt.
Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: False Evidence and Public Justice
If a person is legally required—either by oath or by a provision of law—to tell the truth or make a declaration, and he knowingly makes a false statement, or states something without believing it to be true, he is said to give false evidence.
Chief Justice B.R. Gavai to Lead Inaugural Address at 3rd International Conference on Arbitrating Indo-UK Commercial Disputes in London
London, May 18, 2025 – The Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) is poised to host the 3rd Edition of the…
Three-Year Advocacy Requirement for Judicial Services: Constitutional and Legal Analysis
Candidates are required to have a minimum of three years of experience in the practice of law before they are permitted to take tests at lower levels of the court. This requirement is known as the Three-Year Advocacy Requirement for Judicial Services. It is the intention of this rule to guarantee that individuals who are interested in becoming judges have adequate levels of professional maturity, legal knowledge, and practical experience. The purpose of this article is to investigate the historical roots of this requirement, as well as its foundation in constitutional concepts such as the independence of the court and the equality of opportunity, as well as the statutory framework that enshrines it. In addition, we investigate the most important interpretations of the law by the judiciary, evaluate its impact on the legal community in the real world, and take into account criticisms and practices that are comparable in other jurisdictions.
Difference Between FIR Under S. 154 CrPC & S. 173 BNSS as Explained in IMRAN PRATAPGADHI Case
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat is the subject of this article, which provides an explanation of major legal issues like the differemce between FIR in old and new criminal law. The protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a), the significance of police discretion under BNSS, and the role of the judiciary in avoiding the misuse of criminal law against lawful expression are all brought to light by this.