LawLoveLegal

Introduction In a significant ruling reinforcing the primacy of natural justice and procedural fairness, the Delhi High Court has restrained the Central Government from demolishing structures in and around the historic Ajmer Sharif Dargah without giving affected individuals an opportunity to be heard. The order came while hearing a petition challenging a November 22, 2025 notice issued by the Centre-appointed Nazim directing removal of alleged encroachments inside the Dargah premises. The court categorically observed that the Centre “cannot just go with a bulldozer and raze everything” without following due process. This judgment adds to the growing judicial scrutiny of arbitrary demolitions and underscores the constitutional obligation to ensure fairness even in matters involving encroachments and security considerations. “YOU JUST CAN’T GO WITH A BULLDOZER…” – COURT’S STRONG OBSERVATION Judicial Concern Over Vague Notice Justice Sachin Datta remarked that the November 22 no...

Introduction The Bombay High Court has acquitted Nigerian national Mathew Okako Okofor , who spent over eight years in custody under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court overturned his 2022 conviction after finding that the mandatory procedure for sampling seized narcotics—as required under Section 52A of the NDPS Act —was not followed by the investigating agency. This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s insistence on strict compliance with procedural safeguards in NDPS cases, given the stringent punishments involved. Case Background and Arrest Circumstances of Arrest On August 2017 , the Anti-Narcotics Cell’s Azad Maidan Unit arrested Okofor near the Dongri Bridge at Wadi Bunder, Mumbai. According to police officers: Five Nigerian nationals were seen standing near the bridge “suspiciously”. Four escaped; Okofor was apprehended. A rexine bag in his possession allegedly contained a packet of white powder , identified as mephedrone ....

A Case Highlighting Deportation Procedures, Migrant Rights, and Constitutional Protections Background: Deportation of a Pregnant Woman Sparks National Debate In June 2024, Sunali Khatun, a pregnant resident of Birbhum, West Bengal, and her eight-year-old son were detained in Delhi on suspicion of being illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. On June 24, both were deported to Bangladesh along with her husband and members of another migrant worker family. Their deportation was carried out on the direction of the Foreigner Regional Registration Office (FRRO) Delhi. On June 26, the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) arrested the deported families under the Control of Entry Act for entering Bangladesh without valid documents. This incident triggered political tensions between the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), especially with the 2026 West Bengal elections approaching. Supreme Court’s Humanitarian Intervention Two days before Sunali’s return, the Supreme Court of ...

The Supreme Court of India has issued a sharply worded order addressing a shocking 16-year delay in an acid attack case pending in Delhi. Terming the prolonged pendency a “national shame,” the Court has directed all High Courts to furnish updated information on all pending acid attack trials within four weeks. The order emerged during the hearing of a PIL filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik , whose own case registered in 2009 remains unresolved in a Rohini court. Background of the Case During the hearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi , the Court expressed deep anguish over the systemic delays plaguing acid attack trials. The judges highlighted the disturbing fact that a survivor like Malik has waited 16 years for justice, calling such delays a mockery of the criminal justice system. The Court emphasised that when such delays occur even in the national capital, they reflect a nationwide systemic failure. The Bench issued notices...

The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant ruling with far-reaching implications on the interpretation of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In a judgment dated 18 November, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that even individuals in live-in relationships , void marriages , or voidable marriages may be prosecuted for cruelty—so long as the essential ingredients of the offence are established. This decision strengthens legal protection for women in marital-like arrangements and prevents men from exploiting technicalities of marital validity to escape liability. Background of the Case A man approached the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 498A by a woman he claimed was not his legally wedded wife. According to the complaint: The petitioner already had a valid subsisting marriage. He married the complainant in 2010 without disclosing his earlier marriage. The relationship continued until 2016, during which the woman al...

The Supreme Court of India has once again turned its attention to the contentious issue of reservation in Maharashtra’s local bodies. During a hearing on a contempt petition, the Court directed the State to provide a complete list of all local bodies where the total reservation—covering Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC)—exceeds the 50% constitutional ceiling. This order comes amid preparations for upcoming elections and ongoing disputes about the implementation of the Court’s earlier directions, particularly the 2021 “triple test” requirement. Background: Contempt Petition and the 2021 Triple Test Judgment The current proceedings arise from a contempt petition alleging that Maharashtra failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling. That judgment mandated that any OBC reservation in local bodies must satisfy a three-step test , now widely known as the "triple test": Establish a dedicated commission to conduct a conte...

Background of the Case A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the September 23, 2025 order passed by Justice Jagmohan Bansal concerning disciplinary action against police personnel sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month. The division bench, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, stayed the single judge’s ruling on November 13, 2025, during the hearing of an appeal filed by the state government. The stay has been confirmed by Haryana Additional Advocate General, Sanjeev Kaushik. The matter will next be taken up on January 28, 2026. Challenge to Interpretation of Rule 16.2(2) and Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules The Single Judge’s Findings Justice Jagmohan Bansal had held that: The government cannot impose any punishment other than dismissal where an enrolled police officer is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month, as per Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR), 1934 (applicable in...

The Bombay High Court has delivered an important ruling that clearly defines the limits of criminal liability under the Maharashtra Obscene Dance Act and the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that simply being present at a dance bar does not automatically make a customer a criminal offender. This judgment significantly reinforces legal safeguards against arbitrary arrests and wrongful criminal prosecution in cases involving dance bar raids. Background of the Case During a police raid conducted on the night of May 4–5, 2024, at Surabhi Palace Bar and Restaurant in Chembur, Mumbai, a total of 11 individuals were detained. These included the bar manager, orchestra artists, women dancers, and multiple customers. The police filed charges alleging that women were performing obscene dances in violation of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act, 2016. A customer was also booked under: Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Disobedience of public order Provisions of ...

Background of the Case The Allahabad High Court, in a recent ruling dated 7 November , declined to grant police protection to a couple claiming to be in a live-in relationship. The petition was filed by Sonam and her alleged partner (referred to as petitioner no. 2), who sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the woman’s husband and the police from interfering in their lives. The Court emphasized that the woman was still legally married under the Hindu Marriage Act , and therefore, the claimed “live-in relationship” could not be accorded legal protection. Court’s Key Observation: Freedom Cannot Override Legal Rights Freedom vs. Statutory Rights Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that although an adult has autonomy over personal choices, including relationships, such autonomy is not absolute . The Court clarified that the right to personal liberty under the Constitution cannot be exercised to violate the statutory rights of another person . Quote from the judgment: “A spouse has sta...

The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that the judiciary’s responsibility extends beyond statutory interpretation—it also includes safeguarding the dignity, autonomy, and peace of women, especially after matrimonial disputes have lawfully ended. In a significant judgment delivered by Justice L. Victoria Gowri on November 13, the Madurai Bench dismissed a maintenance plea that sought to drag a divorced woman back into litigation nearly a decade after her mutual-consent divorce. This decision reasserts the Constitutional mandate under Article 21 and clarifies the limits of maintainability and locus standi in maintenance proceedings. Background of the Case Divorce and Settlement in 2014 The woman and her estranged husband obtained a mutual consent divorce in 2014. As part of the agreement: The mother voluntarily declined maintenance. Custody of the minor son was granted to the father. The father agreed to bear all maintenance expenses for the child. Both parties subsequent...

Introduction The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional right to property and the statutory safeguards built into the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot freeze or attach property based merely on suspicion; instead, it must show valid and recorded “reasons to believe” supported by material evidence. The judgment provides important clarity on the limits of ED’s powers and the legal standards required for deprivation of property. Statutory Framework Under PMLA Section 17(1): Search and Seizure – Requirement of “Reasons to Believe” Section 17(1) of the PMLA empowers ED officers to enter and search premises and seize records or property. However, this power is conditional. The officer must possess “reasons to believe” that: A person has committed an offence under the Act, or The person is in possession of proceeds of crime. These reasons must be recorded in wr...

The Supreme Court of India has directed Indraprastha Apollo Hospital to submit its response to a Delhi government report that found serious breaches of the land lease conditions related to the treatment of poor patients. The court’s directive comes after an expert committee revealed significant non-compliance with the hospital’s legal obligations under its land lease agreement. Background of the Case The matter originates from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the All India Lawyers Union before the Delhi High Court , alleging that Apollo Hospital failed to provide free medical facilities to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) patients as mandated under the lease terms. The Delhi High Court, in its 2009 judgment , had directed Apollo Hospital to comply with the conditions of its lease deed, which required the hospital to reserve a fixed quota of free medical services for underprivileged patients. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the hospital—operated by Indr...