Keeping Pace with Legal Change
It happens more often than people want to admit. Two adults meet. They date for years. Things get serious and marriage is discussed. Then it…
In a landmark move to foster inclusivity and create more opportunities for younger members of the legal fraternity, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai has announced that designated senior advocates will no longer be permitted to mention matters for urgent listing before the Supreme Court. The directive announced in open court, will come into effect from August 11.
The case of K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu v. The Supreme Court has firmly closed the matter of advocate enrolment fees by settling that the State Bar Councils are bound with very clear restrictions of receiving only the fee as prescribed by the Advocates Act. In throwing out the custom of imposing additional so-called optional fees, the Court has not only given some relief to money-strapped law-school graduates, but has also reflected a vital constitutional truth that the path to any profession must not be cluttered with extraneous financial requirements that are arbitrary and unlawful.
The Kavita Devi and Others v. In Sunil Kumar and Another the Supreme Court substantially increased the compensation to the family of a victim of an accident. The Court held that in determining compensation, actual income should consist of HRA and wages and the allowances are part of the benefits enjoyed by the entire family. The verdict stated that courts needed to abandon hyper-technical inferences and should be more comprehensive on the meaning of the word income in order to equally provide compensation that is both proper and appreciated. This decision holds fast to a victim-oriented approach to a motor accident claim.
The Constitutional validity of the Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been left pending by the Supreme Court, which asks that investigation on public servants must first be sanctioned by the government. The petition filed by the Centre of Public Interest Litigation heads contends that the clause is used to protect the corrupt. It is justified by the government because it acts as a protection to clean-handed administrators securing fearless governance. The ruling made by the court will play a critical role in determining the effort of anti-corruption versus the administrative protection.
The former Vice President of India, Jagdeep Dhankar, who is a Jat, has disappeared after his resignation on 21.7.2025, and…
A lady journalist in whose video shows I have often appeared, messaged me a few hours back, asking me whether…
I am often accused of being a publicity and/or popularity seeker. Some people say ” Justice Katju, you think you…
My brother judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India I am deeply distressed by some things happening in the…
In the persisting conflict between old-fashioned auto-rickshaw drivers and taxis and the new breed of vehicles providing bike taxis such…
In a recent judgement of the High Court of Uttarakhand, a case was under consideration wherein the defendant took contravention…
