LawLoveLegal

Justice V Ramasubramanian Assumes  Charge as Chairperson of  National Human Rights Commission The esteemed former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice V Ramasubramanian , assumed charge as the new Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on December 25, 2024. Alongside him, Justice (Dr.) Vidyut Ranjan Sarangi joined as a Member of the NHRC. Their appointments were confirmed by the President of India, Droupadi Murmu , on December 21, 2024. Inaugural Address: Upholding India’s Human Rights Legacy In his first address as Chairperson, Justice Ramasubramanian highlighted India’s ancient tradition of human rights , citing the Tamil poet Thiruvalluvar , who espoused the principles of justice, equality, and human dignity long before these concepts gained global recognition. He emphasized the need for collaborative efforts among stakeholders to promote and protect human rights effectively. A Distinguished Legal Career: Justice V Ramasubramanian Early L...

Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines Background In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set out guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, commonly referred to as "bulldozer justice." This term has emerged from instances where properties of individuals accused of crimes have been demolished without following due legal process. The ruling responds to several petitions highlighting the destruction of residential and commercial properties without prior notice, which, according to petitioners, targets marginalized and minority communities. Key Principles Addressed The Supreme Court’s decision rests on critical constitutional principles, particularly the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights . The Court emphasized that no person should be punished without due process and that arbitrary action by the executive undermines citizens’ trust in the justice system. Justice Gavai, in del...

Supreme Court Upholds MHADA Act: Balancing Private Property and Public Welfare under Directive Principles  The Supreme Court of India has rendered a comprehensive judgment on a significant constitutional case concerning the validity of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA Act) under the constitutional protections provided by Articles 31-C and 39(b). This case addresses the legitimacy of the MHADA Act's Chapter VIII-A, which enables the acquisition and transfer of certain dilapidated properties in Mumbai to cooperative societies for repair and reconstruction. Background and Genesis of the Case The issue originates from Mumbai's housing challenges, where pre-1940 buildings face severe dilapidation risks, exacerbated by the city's climate and monsoon seasons. This led to the enactment of the MHADA Act in 1976, establishing a cess to fund repairs. However, these measures proved insufficient due to the magnitude of the problem, prompting an amendment in 1986 t...

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act: Balancing Migration, Citizenship, and Cultural Identity in Assam In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India  addressed the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 , which specifically confers citizenship on a class of migrants from Bangladesh to Assam . This ruling stems from Writ Petition No. 274 of 2009  and multiple connected petitions. Section 6A was introduced after the Assam Accord of 1985 , and has been a focal point of debate due to its implications on citizenship and its alignment with the Constitution of India . Key Issues Addressed by the Court 1. Legislative Competence of Parliament: The Court analyzed whether Parliament had the constitutional authority to enact Section 6A , given that the provision grants citizenship based on a specific timeline related to migration from Bangladesh into Assam. The petitioners contended that Section 6A altered the cut-o...

AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan Challenges Arrest: Claims Unprecedented Assault on Fundamental Rights Amanatullah Khan , a prominent Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)  MLA from Okhla , has approached the Delhi High Court , challenging his recent arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) . In his petition, Khan argues that his arrest not only violates his fundamental rights  but also represents a misuse of legal powers for political motives. He terms his arrest as an “unprecedented assault” on the basic rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution . Allegations and Arrest Khan was arrested in connection with a money laundering case  related to alleged irregularities during his tenure as the Chairperson of the Delhi Waqf Board . The case also involves the acquisition of a Rs 36 crore property in Okhla. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been investigating Khan's financial dealings as part of its broader scrutiny into alleged financial mismanagement and disproportionate assets during hi...

Suo Motu Action Requested by Former SCBA President on Behalf of West Bengal Judicial Officers In a concerning development, Adish Aggarwala, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Senior Advocate, has called upon the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to take suo motu action on a troubling incident involving three judicial officers from West Bengal. The officers, based in Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas, have raised serious concerns over an incident that threatens the independence of the judiciary. The Incident: A Threat to Judicial Independence The judicial officers, residing in the official judicial quarters known as "Judges Abasan", recounted a troubling event that occurred in the early hours of September 9, 2024. In their letter, they revealed that a police officer from the Diamond Harbour district instructed security guards to allow two individuals to enter the premises to disconnect the power supply at an unusual and inappropriate hour. This act ha...

Delhi HC Judge Recuses from Hearing  Sukesh Chandrashekhar's Plea Recusal by Justice Subramonium Prasad On Wednesday, Delhi High Court's Justice Subramonium Prasad recused himself from hearing a plea filed by Sukesh Chandrashekhar, the alleged conman, who sought permission for increased meetings with his legal counsel. The recusal is attributed to the complex nature of Chandrashekhar's multiple legal cases, which could potentially create a conflict of interest or necessitate a different judicial perspective. Plea for Increased Legal Consultations Chandrashekhar's plea requested an increase in the number of meetings with his lawyers from two to five times a week. His legal team argued that the current limit of virtual meetings was insufficient for managing his defense effectively, given the complexity of his legal issues, which include high-profile corruption and extortion cases. Chandrashekhar's request cited a precedent involving Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwa...

Understanding the Supreme Court's Decision in the Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement Case Introduction The Supreme Court of India recently made a big decision in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. the Directorate of Enforcement. Let's break down what happened, why it matters, and what the court decided about Manish Sisodia's bail request related to the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22. Background of the Case It all started when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a report on August 17, 2022, followed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on August 22, 2022. These reports were about alleged issues with the Delhi Excise Policy. Manish Sisodia, a well-known political figure, was arrested by the CBI on February 26, 2023, and then by the ED on March 9, 2023. After his arrest, Sisodia asked for bail, but the Delhi High Court said no, so he went to the Supreme Court. Legal Proceedings and Arguments In the Supreme Court, there were two main appeals against the Del...

Supreme Court to Examine Plea on Applicability of Sharia Law to Non-Believer Muslims The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a plea that raises questions about the applicability of Sharia law to non-believer Muslims. The plea seeks a declaration that individuals who do not wish to be governed by Muslim Personal Law should have the option to be governed by the secular laws of the country. Petition Filed by Safiya PM The petition was filed by Safiya PM, a Kerala-based woman who identifies as a non-believer Muslim. She argues that she should be governed by the Indian Succession Act of 1925 concerning inheritance, rather than Sharia law. According to her, under Sharia law, individuals who leave Islam are excluded from their community and lose inheritance rights in their parental property. Challenge to Sharia Law Restrictions Safiya PM's plea highlights that Sharia law restricts a Muslim person from bequeathing more than 1/3rd of their properties by way of a will. This limitati...

Opposition to Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage in India: State Perspectives State Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage: The Central government has informed the Supreme Court about the opposition from Assam, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan regarding the legalization of same-sex marriages in India. This disclosure emerged during a hearing before a five-judge Constitution bench addressing petitions advocating for marriage equality rights for the LGBTQIA+ community. Responses from State Governments: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, revealed that these states conveyed their stance in response to the Union government's inquiry on the issue of same-sex marriage. The Centre had sent a letter to all states on April 18, soliciting their opinions on the matter. Divergent State Views: Among the states that responded, Assam, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage. Conversely, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur, and Sikkim requested additional t...