Keeping Pace with Legal Change
In a desperate bid to halt the release of a new film based on his life, the Bollywood superstar Salman Khan approached the Delhi High…
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.
In the case of Ankit Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court supported the decision of the High Court to give anticipatory bail to a man who had committed many offenses. With a focus on judicial discretion in accordance with Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the ruling investigates the legal criteria for granting or canceling bail.
The Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings against Taha Husain in a frivolous cat dispute, admonishing police for pursuing baseless charges. The ruling underscores the need for evidentiary thresholds, curbing misuse of criminal law and safeguarding judicial resources and individual liberties.
The Supreme Court invalidated a Patna High Court order permitting narco-analysis in a dowry death case, reaffirming constitutional protections against self-incrimination and ensuring that involuntary or standalone narco-analysis evidence cannot support conviction, emphasizing due process and fundamental rights and dignity.
Bombay High Court quashed Tanang Gram Panchayat’s revocation of Indus Tower’s NOC, deeming the action arbitrary and violative of natural justice. The ruling reaffirmed statutory limits on local bodies and paved the way for resumption of the mobile tower’s installation.
The Mumbai consumer commission dismissed a 2020 complaint against Wow Momos, ruling that the plaintiffs ordered non‑vegetarian momos themselves. Lacking clear evidence of religious harm or service deficiency, the court emphasized individual responsibility and transparent menu labeling in mixed‑menu outlets.
This article explores how BNSS 2023’s Section 163 supersedes CrPC Section 144, instituting written, time-bound emergency orders with mandatory reason-recording and objection hearings, thus modernizing urgent public‐order powers while safeguarding individual freedoms through enhanced transparency and judicial oversight.
The defamation charges against homeowners who were demonstrating against a builder were dismissed by the Supreme Court of India, which affirmed the homebuyers’ fundamental right to peaceful dissent in accordance with Article 19(1)(a). The verdict sheds light on important problems in defamation law, particularly the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
This article provides an analysis of the decision that was handed down by the Supreme Court on April 17, 2025, which upheld the conviction of a father for the murder of his kid. This report analyzes the facts, looks at Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, and investigates how the verdict of the court was influenced by circumstantial evidence, motivation, and forensic results.
In the case of Sheela Devi v. Oriental Insurance, the Supreme Court of the United States provided clarification about the scope of Section 4A of the Employees’ Compensation Act, reaffirmed the discretionary character of statutory penalties, and established standards for the interference of appellate authorities with penalty verdicts. By doing so, it strikes a balance between insurance responsibility, employer defaults, and justice for claimants.
