Keeping Pace with Legal Change
JPMorgan Chase is among the oldest, largest and most recognized financial companies in the world. As one of the world's premier investment banking and financial…
India’s cricket legend Sachin Tendulkar faces a public interest litigation questioning his endorsements of betting apps. The case highlights celebrity responsibility, harm from gambling, and calls for stricter regulatory safeguards.
The attempt by the Trump administration to restrict Harvard University from enrolling overseas students was unsuccessful and was blocked by a federal court in the United States in May of 2025. As a result of the administration’s decision to remove Harvard’s certification to access the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), the legal status of about 6,800 international students was put in jeopardy. Using the argument that the action was retaliatory and violated constitutional rights, Harvard filed a lawsuit. Harvard’s authority to enroll international students has been temporarily restored as a result of the ruling made by the court, which calls attention to the difficulties that exist between federal immigration policy and academic autonomy.
The environment of online gaming and gambling in India is undergoing a substantial upheaval. In response to the rapid expansion of digital platforms, the government has enacted a number of rules and regulations which are intended to regulate and control this industry. Among the goals of these measures are to differentiate between games of skill and games of chance, to guarantee equitable taxation, to safeguard users from potential hazards, and to encourage responsible gaming activities. The regulatory structure, on the other hand, continues to be complicated because of the fact that there are overlapping jurisdictions between central and state agencies. This results in difficulties in terms of enforcement and compliance. This article goes into the existing legal landscape, recent changes, and ongoing efforts to create a cohesive regulatory environment for online gaming and gambling in India. It also discusses the current state of the legal landscape.
Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a professor at Ashoka University, has recently become the focal point of a national debate as a result of his comments regarding Operation Sindoor, which is a military operation that India carried out in response to the Pahalgam terror incident. His remarks, which called into question the manner in which the government handled the operation and brought attention to concerns with the rights of minority groups, resulted in his imprisonment and triggered a widespread debate on the subject of freedom of expression, national security, and the relationship between academics and political discourse. In this article, the specifics of the dispute, the responses it provoked, and the broader consequences for Indian society are discussed in depth.
Jaipur’s top advocates excel in criminal defence and civil litigation, combining deep legal knowledge, courtroom expertise, and compassionate client support to secure justice and favorable outcomes across diverse legal matters.
Jaipur hosts top law schools offering LLB and LLM programs, blending rigorous academics, practical training, experienced faculty, and strong placements to shape future legal professionals across respected, innovative premier institutions.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala of the Supreme Court ordered Nagaland to reconsider Kakiho Village’s recognition under the 1996 and 2005 memoranda, mandating thorough review of objections and strict adherence to procedure.
Justice R. Mahadevan of the Supreme Court ruled Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot dismiss a plaint outright and revived Vinod Infra’s land dispute suit
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court’s Justice J.B. Pardiwala held that Kerala’s attempt to withdraw probation, promotion, and seniority rights from disabled employees violated legitimate expectation and equality guarantees.
In the case of M.T. Mani v. RBI, the Supreme Court maintained the 2020 pension system of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), stating that the denial of retrospective payment was justifiable owing to financial constraints. In topics pertaining to policy, it highlighted the importance of judicial restraint and prohibited selective approval of scheme terms.
