Keeping Pace with Legal Change
It is the ancestral house of Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui who is the founder of Al-Falah University. The local government, in this case, the Mhow Cantonment Board, had given a notice to demolish the building. They asserted that construction of sections of the house was done against the law and without authorization. T
Recently the SC held that a widow is the exclusive heir to ancestral property by considering a registered Will and an oral family settlement to be valid in the matter of Metpalli Lasum Bai v. Metpalli Muthaiah on 21st July 2025. The widow had long possession and the will was inviolable by any query on the Andhra Pradesh HC that was set aside.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India passed an important verdict in a matter of Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram…
The Supreme Court of the United States addressed the legal repercussions of consent decrees in family division cases in this significant decision. The court reaffirmed that after such decrees have been issued, they cannot be challenged via a new litigation and must only be opposed through recall processes.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, clarified that deemed tenancy under the Bombay Rent Act cannot be claimed from business conducting agreements. The ruling emphasizes distinct contractual intent, protecting property owners and ensuring clarity in commercial lease disputes.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and N. Kotiswar Singh, upheld the validity of a 1967 gift deed, rejecting the retrospective application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act. The ruling clarifies that pre-1988 transactions are exempt, prioritizing legal clarity and property rights.
Kapil Sibal urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Waqf (Amendment) Act’s five-year Islam practice requirement, calling it arbitrary and a breach of religious freedom. He warned the clause unfairly bars converts and young Muslims from creating endowments and undermines equality and due process.
This paper examines a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling clarifying consumer rights in flood damage cases under consumer law. The decision addresses liability for property damage caused by state actions, emphasizing the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and state law remedies. It enables affected consumers, like Texas landowners, to seek compensation for flood-related losses due to government infrastructure projects. The ruling highlights the balance between public projects and private property rights, offering a framework for future litigation. It underscores the importance of clear legal pathways for consumers seeking redress.
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has set off a multifaceted debate at the confluence of law, religion, and administration. While the government’s intention is to increase transparency and efficiency, the suggested modifications have caused widespread concern among Muslim organizations and legal professionals regarding autonomy and minority rights. While the Supreme Court weighs the provisions of the bill, its judgment will not just decide the destiny of waqf administration in India but will also establish a pivotal precedent in the state’s relationship with religious institutions.
To summarize, the issue of whether the Supreme Court can invalidate the Waqf Amendment Act is a complicated constitutional issue relating to how to balance the interests of the state against safeguarding religious and property rights. The Act was intended to modernize the management of waqf properties by instituting more transparency and accountability but has created issues around state overstepping and intrusion into religious affairs. The Supreme Court, with its judicial review power, is responsible for ensuring that the legislature’s enactment of any law is consistent with the Constitution. This implies that if the Waqf Amendment Act violates constitutional protections of religious freedom and equal property rights, the Court has the jurisdiction to strike down those provisions.
