LawLoveLegal

I. Introduction The Supreme Court of India recently delivered strong observations while quashing an FIR registered by the Rajasthan Police against Ashish Dave, former regional head of Zee Rajasthan. The Court criticised the state police for acting like “James Bond” and adopting a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta termed the FIR “as bogus an FIR as it can get” and held that allowing such a complaint to survive would send a disturbing message about unequal access to justice. The ruling revisits fundamental questions about the legality of FIR registration, the limits of criminal law, and judicial safeguards against abuse of process. II. Factual Background In September 2023, an FIR was registered at Ashok Nagar Police Station, Jaipur, based on a complaint filed by Zee Media Corporation Limited through its representative Sanju Raju. The complaint alleged that Ashish Dave misused his position as regional head to: Demand money fro...

I. Case Background In a significant development in the Delhi excise policy investigation, 23 accused persons — including former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Telangana politician K. Kavitha and AAP leader Vijay Nair — were discharged by Special Judge Jitender Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi, in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case relating to the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy. The Central Bureau of Investigation had registered an FIR in August 2022 alleging criminal conspiracy and corruption in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22. Three charge sheets were filed, with the second naming Kejriwal. The CBI alleged that ₹100 crore was paid by a so-called “south lobby” to influence the excise policy in favour of certain private players. Charges invoked included criminal conspiracy, cheating, destruction of evidence and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the trial co...

Case Overview The Supreme Court of India has indicated that it is open to referring the issue of ex-post facto environmental clearance (EC) to a five-judge Constitution Bench if it finds reason to doubt a recent three-judge bench ruling delivered on November 18 last year. The observation was made by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the 2017 and 2021 notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC). These notifications allowed project proponents to seek environmental clearance after commencing construction or operations — a departure from the long-standing regime of prior environmental clearance . Factual Background 1. The Notifications Under Challenge The MoEFCC issued notifications in 2017 and 2021 permitting certain projects to obtain environmental clearance retrospectively. Petitioners — including environmental NGOs Van...

I. Introduction The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant clarification in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. The Court held that a Class 10 (Madhyamik) admit card cannot be treated as a standalone document for verifying voter parentage and date of birth. Instead, it must be submitted along with the Madhyamik pass certificate . This clarification emerged during urgent submissions made by the Election Commission of India (ECI) before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi. The decision is legally significant as it intersects electoral integrity, constitutional powers under Article 142, and procedural safeguards in voter verification. II. Factual Background: The SIR and Logical Discrepancy Category The controversy arises from the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, where: Nearly 13.6 million voters were issued notices un...

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of the “None of the Above” (NOTA) option in Indian elections, questioning whether it has achieved its intended democratic purpose. More than a decade after its introduction by judicial mandate, the Court observed that NOTA has hardly influenced political parties’ candidate selection practices , with electoral choices continuing to be driven by electability rather than ethical standards. The remarks were made during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy challenging the practice of uncontested elections, which allegedly deprive voters of the opportunity to exercise their right to choose, including the option of NOTA. This case raises critical constitutional and democratic questions about voter choice, electoral accountability, and the nature of democratic participation in India. Background: What is NOTA and Why Was It Introduced? The 2013 Supr...

I. Background: WhatsApp’s Submissions Before the Supreme Court WhatsApp recently informed the Supreme Court of India that it does not read private messages, sell user data, or use encrypted chats for targeted advertisements , reaffirming its commitment to end-to-end encryption. However, it strongly opposed a blanket prohibition on data sharing with its parent company, Meta Platforms , arguing that such a restriction would harm user choice, disrupt legitimate business operations, and negatively impact small Indian enterprises that rely on digital advertising. The matter is being heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymala Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi , in appeals filed by WhatsApp, Meta, and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) ruling dated November 4, 2025 , which upheld a penalty of ₹213.14 crore on WhatsApp for abuse of dominance under competition law. II. Regulatory Background: C...

Introduction The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has unveiled India’s first comprehensive counter-terrorism policy titled ‘Prahaar’ , marking a significant shift toward an intelligence-led, technology-driven national security framework. The policy aims to deny terrorists, their financiers, and supporters access to funding, weapons, logistical support, and safe havens. It also reflects India’s evolving threat perception in the digital age, where drones, encrypted platforms, dark web markets, and cryptocurrencies increasingly facilitate terrorism. This policy announcement coincided with counter-terror operations in Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir, where Indian security forces neutralised three terrorists, including a senior commander, underscoring the immediate operational context in which the policy was launched. Objectives and Strategic Framework of ‘Prahaar’ The ‘Prahaar’ policy adopts a multi-layered counter-terrorism architecture , focusing on prevention, disruption, deterrence, and resp...

Introduction In a major escalation of global trade tensions, United States President Donald Trump announced an increase in proposed global tariffs to 15% , up from the earlier announced 10%. This announcement follows a significant US Supreme Court ruling limiting presidential tariff powers , prompting Trump to invoke alternative executive authority to impose temporary duties. The move has important consequences for India’s trade position, global supply chains, and international trade law norms , especially given ongoing bilateral negotiations between New Delhi and Washington. Background: Trump’s Global Tariff Policy Shift On Saturday, President Trump stated that he would raise the global tariff rate to 15% , citing dissatisfaction with a recent Supreme Court decision that struck down his earlier tariff regime. Previously: Trump had announced a 10% global tariff on imports using executive authority. The tariffs were framed as emergency measures to address trade deficits and national se...

Introduction A senior Haryana fisheries department official has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging proceedings initiated against him under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The petition also challenges the withdrawal of his promotion, alleging violations of statutory procedure, constitutional safeguards, and principles of natural justice. The case raises critical questions on jurisdiction under the POSH framework, procedural fairness in sexual harassment inquiries, and constitutional protections available to civil servants . Factual Background The petitioner, Shripal , was promoted and appointed as Director of Fisheries, Haryana, in 2024. As Joint Director, he functioned as the appointing and disciplinary authority for Group ‘C’ employees , thereby falling within the statutory definition of an “employer” under Section 2(g) of the POSH Act, 2013. In January 2026 , he was informed that two compl...

1. Introduction: A Defining Constitutional Moment The Supreme Court of India has fixed May 5, 2026 for the final hearing of petitions challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) and the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 . This hearing is expected to be one of the most consequential constitutional adjudications in recent decades, involving questions of citizenship, equality, secularism, immigration policy, and the limits of judicial review . 2. Procedural Background and Case Management A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi directed that the matters be listed seriatim for final hearing in the week commencing May 5, 2026 . Hearing Schedule Petitioners: May 5 and May 6 (first half) Respondents (Union of India): May 7 Rejoinder arguments: May 12 The Court noted that the petitions fall into two broad categories: Assam and Tripura cases Cases from the rest of India Nodal counsel have been directed to classify p...