LawLoveLegal

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...

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...

1. Background of the Dispute: Mundra Grazing Land Allotment The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Gujarat government order reclaiming 108 hectares of grazing land allotted to Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZ) in Mundra, Gujarat. The dispute traces back to 2005 , when the Gujarat Revenue Department and the Collector allotted approximately 231 acres of grazing land in Navinal village, Kutch district , to private entities associated with the Mundra Port project. In 2011 , a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Gujarat High Court challenging the land allotment, alleging improper diversion of grazing land and environmental concerns such as dredging, filling of creeks, and destruction of mangroves. 2. Supreme Court Judgment: Violation of Natural Justice A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar held that the Gujarat government’s July 4, 2024 order resuming 108 hectares of land was passed without granting Adani Ports an op...

Introduction: A Constitutional Reassessment of Labour Law The Supreme Court of India is set to revisit one of the most consequential questions in Indian labour jurisprudence: What constitutes an “industry”? A nine-judge Constitution Bench , scheduled to hear the matter on March 17 and 18 , will reconsider the expansive interpretation laid down in the landmark Bangalore Water Supply case (1978) . Chief Justice of India Surya Kant described the reference as the first matter referred to a nine-judge bench in the Court’s history , highlighting its constitutional and institutional significance. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for labour rights, public administration, educational institutions, charities, and government departments . Background of the Reference: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh Origin of the Reference The lead case State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh seeks reconsideration of the definition of “industry” under labour laws. In 2017 , a seven-judge b...

Background of the Case Actor Rajpal Yadav surrendered at Tihar Jail, Delhi , after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him any further relief in long-pending cheque bounce cases. The surrender took place on Thursday at around 4 PM , in compliance with the court’s direction. The cases stem from a complaint filed by M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd against Rajpal Yadav and his wife, alleging repeated dishonour of cheques and failure to repay outstanding dues. A magisterial court convicted the actor in 2018 , sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment . This conviction was affirmed by a sessions court in 2019 . Despite multiple opportunities, the High Court noted that Yadav had repeatedly breached undertakings given to the court to settle the dues. Delhi High Court’s Refusal to Extend Surrender Deadline On February 2, the Delhi High Court had directed Rajpal Yadav to surrender by 4 PM , after observing prolonged non-compliance. The actor’s counsel sought one more week , claiming that ₹50 ...

Background of the Pune Porsche Crash Case (2024) The Pune Porsche crash case arose out of a tragic road accident that occurred in the early hours of 19 May 2024 near Kalyani Nagar, Pune . According to the prosecution, a 17-year-old boy , allegedly under the influence of alcohol, was driving a high-end Porsche car after attending a late-night party with two friends. At around 2:00 AM , the car rammed into a two-wheeler, resulting in the death of two young IT professionals, Anis Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta . The incident sparked nationwide outrage, not only due to the loss of innocent lives but also because of the subsequent allegations that influential individuals attempted to manipulate the criminal justice process . Allegations of Evidence Tampering and Role of the Accused The present Supreme Court proceedings concerned three accused persons alleged to have tampered with evidence after the accident: The father of one of the juveniles present in the car , Ashish Satish Mittal , and A...

Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed and strengthened the powers of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to impose environmental compensation (EC) by holding that project cost and scale of operations are valid and relevant factors while computing compensation for environmental violations. The ruling arose from two civil appeals challenging orders of the NGT Western Zone Bench, Pune , which had imposed substantial environmental compensation on two real estate developers in Maharashtra. Facts of the Two Appeals Rhythm County Project Project Cost: ₹335 crore Environmental Compensation Imposed: ₹5 crore (approximately 2% of project cost) NGT Order Date: August 2022 Keystone Properties Project Project Cost: ₹76 crore Environmental Compensation Imposed: ₹4.47 crore (approximately 5.88% of project cost) NGT Order Date: September 2022 Both developers challenged the NGT orders before the Supreme Court, arguing that: The compensation was excessive and disproport...

Introduction The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a 62-year-old man accused of transporting cow meat, holding that his claim of being misled into believing it was buffalo meat was a “clever ploy and an afterthought”. The judgment reinforces the strict approach adopted by courts in offences involving cow slaughter laws, anticipatory bail jurisprudence, and public order concerns linked to religious sentiment. Factual Background of the Case The case pertains to Noor Mohammad , a resident of Burail, Chandigarh. On July 19, 2025 , the police recovered 50 kilograms of meat from a two-wheeler allegedly being transported by the accused in Sector 45C, Burail. The recovery followed a complaint by members of a Gau Raksha Dal , after which the police intercepted the vehicle and seized the meat. At the time of interception, the accused claimed that the meat was buffalo meat (buff) and produced two purchase bills issued by sellers based in Malerkotla (Punjab) and Sah...

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 ...

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...

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...