LawLoveLegal

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...

I. Background of the Supreme Court Directions The Supreme Court of India has directed all States and Union Territories to frame and notify comprehensive media briefing policies for criminal cases within three months . The objective of the direction is to prevent media trials , protect the fairness of investigations , and safeguard the dignity and privacy of victims, witnesses, and accused persons . The direction was issued by a Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh , while dealing with a long-pending public interest litigation filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in 1999 . The PIL highlighted the absence of structured guidelines governing police encounters and police communication with the media , especially during ongoing criminal investigations. Despite earlier judicial interventions and executive advisories, the Court noted that States had failed to demonstrate adequate seriousness in regulating police briefings, resulting in repeated...

I. Introduction The prolonged standoff between Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi and the DMK-led government under Chief Minister M K Stalin has once again come into sharp focus following the Governor’s walkout from the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly . What appears on the surface as a disagreement over speeches and protocol raises deeper constitutional questions about the role of Governors in India’s federal structure , the limits of their discretion , and the authority of elected state governments . II. Background of the Conflict The conflict between the Governor and the state government has not emerged overnight. It has evolved over several years, manifesting through disputes over: The Governor’s Assembly address Delay or refusal to grant assent to Bills Public comments by the Governor on governance issues Alleged interference by the Union government via Raj Bhavans The friction became visibly public when Governor Ravi walked out of the Assembly , refusing to read the full government-ap...

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has once again intervened to reinforce constitutional discipline under the anti-defection law, sharply criticising the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker for prolonged delay in deciding disqualification petitions against rebel Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) MLAs . Granting a final two-week deadline , the Court warned that continued inaction would undermine the authority of constitutional institutions and the rule of law. Background of the Dispute The case arises from petitions filed by senior BRS leaders, including K T Rama Rao (KTR) , challenging the Speaker’s inaction on disqualification pleas against 10 BRS MLAs who allegedly defected to the ruling Congress party after the 2023 Telangana Assembly elections. Out of these: Seven disqualification petitions have already been rejected by the Speaker Three petitions remain pending, triggering the present round of litigation The delay directly violates a July 31, 2025 Supreme Court judgment , w...

Background of the Case In a landmark judgment reinforcing disability inclusion in public employment, the Supreme Court of India directed Coal India Limited (CIL) , a public sector undertaking, to create a supernumerary post and appoint a woman with 57% disability as a Management Trainee . The ruling arose from a recruitment process initiated by Coal India in 2019 , under which the petitioner applied for the post of Management Trainee in the visually handicapped category . Despite being shortlisted , called for document verification , and subjected to a medical examination , she was later declared medically unfit on the ground that she suffered from an additional neurological condition . Proceedings Before the Calcutta High Court Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court . Single Judge Decision A single judge ruled in her favour, holding that: Coal India, being a public sector corporation , could not deny appointment merely because its recruitment...

Background of the Case The Election Commission of India (ECI) has informed the Supreme Court that its authority to verify a person’s citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is strictly confined to determining eligibility for voter registration and does not extend to deportation or termination of citizenship. The submissions were made before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi , while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the legality of the SIR exercise undertaken by the ECI. What Is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)? The Special Intensive Revision is an electoral exercise conducted periodically by the ECI to: Remove names of deceased voters Delete entries of persons who have permanently migrated Correct duplicate or erroneous voter records The petitioners allege that the current SIR exercise is being used as a backdoor mechanism to determine citizenship , thereby leading to potential disen...

Background of the Dispute A significant constitutional challenge relating to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections has reached the Supreme Court of India , days before polling scheduled for January 15 . A Mumbai-based businessman, Mozam Ali Mir , has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of his Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which alleged mass, arbitrary, and unconstitutional rejection of nomination forms across Mumbai’s 227 electoral wards. The Supreme Court has listed the matter for urgent hearing on Tuesday , barely two days before the elections, underlining the gravity of the allegations and the potential impact on electoral democracy. The Petitioner and Nature of the Challenge Mir’s PIL, originally filed before the Bombay High Court on January 5 , raised concerns about the sanctity of free and fair municipal elections , claiming that returning officers systematically rejected nominations on hyper-technical and no...

Background: Centre–State Clash Escalates to the Apex Court The long-running confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Trinamool Congress (TMC)–led West Bengal government has now reached the Supreme Court of India , marking a significant escalation in a politically sensitive dispute ahead of state elections. The ED has approached the apex court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution , alleging that its lawful investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) was deliberately obstructed by the West Bengal state machinery, including Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee . ED’s Allegations: “Unprecedented Interference” in Central Investigation According to the ED’s petition, the controversy stems from search operations conducted on Thursday at multiple locations linked to political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) , including: The Kolkata office of I-PAC in Salt Lake The residence of I-PAC director Pr...

Supreme Court Reasserts Victim-Centric Approach in POCSO Bail Jurisprudence The Supreme Court has once again underscored that victim safety and the integrity of the trial process must override all other considerations while deciding bail under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) . In a significant judgment delivered on Friday, the Court cancelled the bail granted to an accused in a 2024 gangrape case involving a minor, holding that the Allahabad High Court’s order suffered from “manifest perversity” . The ruling reinforces the heightened statutory rigour applicable to sexual offences against children and clarifies that prolonged incarceration or delay in trial cannot be mechanically invoked to grant bail in grave POCSO offences . Factual Background of the Case The case arises from an alleged gangrape of a 16-year-old girl in Shamli district, Uttar Pradesh , on December 1, 2024 . An FIR was registered the following day at the Shamli police station. Acc...

Background of the Suo Motu Proceedings The Supreme Court is currently hearing a suo motu case initiated on July 28 last year following media reports highlighting a sharp rise in stray dog bites and rabies cases , particularly affecting children in the National Capital Territory of Delhi . The proceedings stem from public health concerns and the apparent failure of authorities to effectively implement existing statutory mechanisms for stray dog management. Constitution of the Special Bench A three-judge special bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N V Anjaria is hearing the matter. The hearing on Thursday remained inconclusive and has been scheduled to continue on Friday, indicating the complexity of balancing public safety, animal welfare, and statutory compliance . Supreme Court’s Clarification on Removal of Stray Dogs The Supreme Court categorically clarified that it has not directed the removal of all stray dogs from public streets . Justice Sa...

CASE BACKGROUND — DISMISSAL OF A DISTRICT JUDGE FOR GRANTING BAIL IN EXCISE CASES The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of Nirbhay Singh Suliya , former Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khargone (Madhya Pradesh), who was removed from service in 2014 on allegations of: exercising judicial discretion improperly in bail orders under the MP Excise Act showing alleged “double standards” in granting or denying bail The disciplinary action was initiated after a complaint was filed in 2011 alleging corruption and irregularity in bail orders relating to seized liquor quantities above 50 bulk litres. An enquiry was conducted under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 , resulting in his dismissal, which was affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in July 2024. The officer challenged this before the Supreme Court. SUPREME COURT’S CENTRAL OBSERVATION — “FEAR CANNOT CONTROL JUDICIAL DISCRETION” Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala Justice KV Visw...

Case Background — UAPA Charges and Alleged Larger Conspiracy The case arises from the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the 2020 Delhi riots, investigated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The prosecution alleged that the riots were the outcome of a coordinated conspiracy involving planning, mobilisation, and execution through protest networks. Multiple FIRs, supplementary charge sheets, and protected witnesses formed part of the case record. The Delhi High Court earlier referred to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam as “intellectual architects” of the alleged conspiracy. Several accused challenged continued incarceration on grounds of prolonged custody and delay in trial. Supreme Court Grants Bail to Five Co-Accused — With Eleven Stringent Conditions The Supreme Court granted bail to five accused: • Gulfisha Fatima • Meeran Haider • Shifa-ur-Rehman • Mohd. Saleem Khan • Shadab Ahmed The Court imposed eleven strict bail conditions, including: • Personal bond of ₹2 lakh...