LawLoveLegal

Introduction: Liberty as the Supreme Court’s Core Mandate Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India has recently articulated a forceful constitutional reminder: the Supreme Court exists to uphold personal liberty and human rights, not to justify executive excesses . His remarks, delivered at an international conference organised by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) in Goa, come at a time when concerns over selective investigations, prolonged incarceration, and inconsistent judicial standards have become central to public discourse. Justice Bhuyan’s observations are not rhetorical. They are deeply rooted in constitutional text, statutory frameworks, and long-standing judicial precedent. Constitutional Foundations of Personal Liberty Article 21 of the Constitution of India At the heart of Justice Bhuyan’s remarks lies Article 21 , which guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established ...

Introduction Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant has delivered a powerful reminder of the constitutional promise of timely justice, warning that delay does not merely deny justice but destroys it altogether . Speaking at the Fali Nariman Memorial Lecture , organised by the Bombay Bar Association , the Chief Justice underscored the pivotal role of High Courts under Article 226 in ensuring meaningful access to justice for ordinary citizens. His remarks come at a time when mounting judicial arrears, procedural complexity, and geographical barriers continue to undermine the lived experience of constitutional rights. Context of the Address: The Fali Nariman Memorial Lecture The lecture, titled “The Sentinel on Qui Vive: Article 226 as the Guardian of Access to Justice” , was delivered in Mumbai and focused on the constitutional architecture that places High Courts as the first and most effective protectors of individual liberty. Justice Surya Kant’s address was both reflective and r...

Background of the Case In a significant ruling highlighting the judiciary’s concern over prolonged matrimonial litigation, the Supreme Court of India dissolved a marriage that lasted only 65 days , where the spouses have lived separately for over 13 years and were entangled in more than 40 civil and criminal cases against each other. The marriage was solemnised on January 28, 2012 . Within 65 days, the wife left the matrimonial home alleging cruelty by the husband and his family members . Since then, the parties have remained estranged, litigating across courts in Delhi, Allahabad, Ghaziabad and Lucknow , effectively turning the judicial system into a forum for sustained personal conflict. Proceedings Before the Supreme Court The matter came before a Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan . The wife approached the Supreme Court invoking Article 142 of the Constitution , seeking: Dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown Quashing of multiple pending...

Introduction: When Justice Is Delayed Beyond Reason In a significant reaffirmation of its role as the final arbiter of justice, the Supreme Court of India invoked its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 to bring closure to a 35-year-old civil property dispute , ensuring that the successful litigant finally enjoys the fruits of a decree granted in his favour as far back as 1990 . The case highlights systemic delays in civil litigation, abuse of procedural remedies, and the judiciary’s increasing willingness to step in decisively when ordinary legal processes fail. Background of the Dispute: A Sale Agreement from 1973 The litigation traces its origins to 1973 , when Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale entered into an agreement to purchase 36 gunthas of land situated in Dhayari village, Pune , from the original owner Rajaram Bajirao Pokale . Despite receiving consideration, Pokale failed to execute the sale deed, compelling Bhonsale to initiate specific performance proceedin...

Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India delivered a stern message on judicial integrity while dismissing a challenge to an order passed by the Allahabad High Court concerning the forcible eviction of a woman and her three minor children from their residence in Siddharthnagar district, Uttar Pradesh. The eviction was carried out on the basis of an ex parte civil court injunction , allegedly obtained through the influence of a district court employee , raising serious concerns of collusion between judicial officers and court staff . The apex court categorically observed that courts cannot become breeding grounds for corruption , as such acts strike at the core of public confidence in the justice delivery system. Supreme Court’s Observations on Judicial Corruption A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court’s directions, stating unequivocally: “Temples of justice cannot be allowed to become fertile ground of corrupt activ...

Background of the Support to Poor Prisoners Scheme (2023) The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) launched the Support to Poor Prisoners Scheme in 2023 to assist undertrial prisoners who were granted bail by courts but continued to remain in jail due to inability to furnish bail bonds or financial sureties . Under the scheme: Financial assistance is provided to States/UTs Funds may be used only in cases where bail has already been granted Assistance covers bail amount or surety shortfall However, a Supreme Court order dated 8 October 2025 directed: Review of the scheme framework Assessment of ground-level implementation Strengthening monitoring and release procedures The recent MHA advisory and revised guidelines have been issued in compliance with that order . Supreme Court Trigger for the Policy Revision The Supreme Court had expressed concern that: Thousands of undertrials remain in jail Despite bail orders by courts Only because they cannot afford bail amounts The Court treated this a...

INTRODUCTION The Jharkhand High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on officials of the State Water Resources Department for filing what it termed a “most bogus and frivolous” civil review petition, observing that the petition was filed with the oblique motive of delaying execution of an arbitral award payable to a Bihar-based construction company, M/s R.K. Construction Private Limited. The Court directed that the fine be paid personally by the concerned officials and deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA). CASE BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATION AWARD The dispute arose out of civil works carried out in Jamshedpur under the Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project. The construction company was awarded approximately ₹2.5 crore through arbitration, following a dispute with the Water Resources Department over unpaid dues for executed works. After the arbitral award, the company initiated execution proceedings before the competent court to recover the awarded amount. Durin...

Background of the Case The Supreme Court has issued significant directions to all States and Union Territories, calling for a consolidated and updated compilation of minimum wage notifications. The Court observed that the lack of uniform, reliable and easily accessible minimum wage data has made adjudication in motor accident compensation cases increasingly difficult, particularly while determining notional income for victims. The directions were delivered by a Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh while deciding an appeal arising from a 2013 motor accident case in Madhya Pradesh. Issue Before the Supreme Court The Court noted that: • Minimum wage notifications are revised periodically • Many States upload incomplete or outdated data • Courts often struggle to access the applicable wage notification • This leads to delays and inconsistent compensation awards The Bench remarked that locating correct wage rates at the time of accident has become “quite a difficult...

Introduction — Supreme Court Reaffirms Duty to Ensure “Just Compensation” The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that courts adjudicating land acquisition disputes must not restrict compensation merely to the amount claimed by landowners, if evidence and statutory parameters justify a higher market value. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi held that land acquisition proceedings are not strictly adversarial in nature and that courts have a statutory and equitable duty to determine and award compensation in accordance with law, rather than limiting relief to what the claimant has pleaded. The Court clarified that once the correct market value of land is determined based on statutory factors, restricting compensation to a lower, claimed amount would defeat the mandate of the Land Acquisition Act. Case Background — Karnataka High Court Enhanced Value But Restricted Payable Compensation The dispute arose from land acquired for the Hirehalla Left Bank Canal P...

Case Background: Delay in Release Despite Supreme Court Bail Order The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh prison authorities for delaying the release of an undertrial Muslim accused, who had been granted bail under an anti-conversion case, but continued to remain in custody for almost one month after the order. The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan described the situation as “very sad” and “unfortunate”, observing that a citizen’s liberty was curtailed solely on account of a trivial technical objection raised by jail authorities. The Court held that even though all relevant details — identity of the accused, case number, offences, and police station — were clearly mentioned, the accused was not released merely because the order did not mention a sub-clause of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Facts of the Case: Bail, Release Order, and Continued Detention The accused was facing trial ...

Introduction: A Shift Towards Victim-Centric Criminal Justice In a significant ruling reinforcing victim rights in India’s criminal justice system, the Supreme Court has held that criminal revision proceedings do not automatically abate upon the death of the person who initiated them . The Court clarified that legal heirs or children of a deceased victim can continue such proceedings , provided they fall within the statutory definition of a “victim”. This judgment strengthens the victim-centric approach in criminal law and prevents substantive justice from being defeated by procedural technicalities. Factual Background of the Case The ruling arose from appeals filed by Syed Shahnawaz Ali , whose father had initiated criminal proceedings alleging that the accused had fabricated a sale deed to illegally claim ownership of his property . Key Facts: The trial court discharged the accused of several serious offences. The trial was permitted to continue only for the offence of cheating. Ag...

Introduction In a significant ruling on matrimonial jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that a long period of separation between a husband and wife, with no possibility of reconciliation, amounts to cruelty to both parties . The Court observed that prolonged matrimonial litigation results in the perpetuation of a marriage only on paper, serving neither the interests of the parties nor that of society. Invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution , the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown , reiterating that mental cruelty can arise from sustained separation and rigid refusal to accommodate each other. Bench and Background of the Case Composition of the Bench The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi , with Justice Manmohan authoring the opinion for the Court. Marriage and Separation Timeline The parties were married on August 4, 2000 Matrimonial disp...

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has issued a stern warning to the Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu-led state government for failing to release essential judicial funds, threatening to initiate contempt proceedings if ₹10 crore is not deposited with the High Court by November 13, 2025 . Judicial Reprimand Over Financial Neglect A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma took serious note of the non-release of funds since September 2025 , observing that the continued financial neglect is “disrupting the normal functioning of the courts” . The Bench directed the Finance Secretary to personally appear before the Court with a bank draft of ₹10 crore payable to the Registrar General of the High Court . The order explicitly warned that failure to comply would result in the issuance of a contempt notice . The court stated: “Let the Secretary (Finance) come present in this Court along with necessary draft of ₹10 crore, in favour of the Registrar Ge...