Keeping Pace with Legal Change
The Global Peace Summit Greece 2026 is set to bring together young people from different countries for a four day international summit in Athens, Greece.…
A very recent public power judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India dealt with the admissibility of secretly recorded…
This paper is an exploration of a landmark case of the Supreme Court of India on the issue of gratuity…
Recently, the Supreme Court of India passed a landmark case in Civil Appeal No. 23514 of 2017, Torrent Power Limited…
This paper is the analysis of one such judgement of the Supreme Court of India on entry tax (imposition of…
The article discusses an important decision of the Supreme Court of India that throws light on the most important procedural…
The current paper discusses an important case of the Supreme Court of India SUHAGRANI AND OTHERS versus MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS…
Introduction So, picture this: July 15, 2025, Supreme Court of India’s got five social media influencers in the hot seat.…
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.
What the Case Actually Is Satyakey Ashok Savarkar, his family, and another individual who made the decision that he would…
The Supreme Court has provided interim relief against orders made by Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh that made restaurants along the Kanwar Yatra route mandatorily put up the owner’s and employee’s names. The order which was contested by Mahua Moitra and civil society groups, had been faulted for allowing religious profiling and having no legal basis. The Court held that such administrative measures have to be rooted in statutes and cannot be used to force disclosure of identity in the name of public order.
