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...

Introduction: Taking Stock of Gender Justice in 2025 Assessing a year through the lens of gender justice is never straightforward. 2025 reflected sharp contradictions —landmark judicial interventions, undeniable courage by women across professions, but also entrenched misogyny, political hypocrisy, and structural inequality. From the corridors of power to courtrooms, sports fields to workplaces, India’s gender story this year oscillated between progress and regression. I. Abuse of Power and the Question of Consent: The Nitish Kumar Incident One of the most disturbing moments of 2025 involved Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar forcibly removing a Muslim woman doctor’s face covering during a government appointment ceremony in Patna. The act occurred in a public setting while the woman was receiving her appointment letter for an AYUSH position. Legal Implications Touching a woman without consent constitutes an offence under: Section 354, Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Assault or criminal forc...

The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant direction to all High Courts and State governments to ensure expeditious disposal of cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court stressed that terrorism-related matters must be handled with “efficacy and expediency,” especially considering the stringent nature of the law and the increasing pendency of cases. The directions were delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh while hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) appeal in the 2010 Jnaneshwari Express derailment case , which claimed 148 lives and injured over 170 passengers. BACKGROUND: THE 2010 JNANESHWARI EXPRESS CASE The case relates to the derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express in West Bengal, allegedly caused by sabotage due to opposition to joint police-paramilitary operations against Maoist groups in the region. Eighteen accused individuals were granted bail by the Calcutta High Court, a decision chall...

The Supreme Court of India has raised serious institutional concerns over what it described as a “growing trend” of reopening and overturning its own judgments before differently constituted benches. The remarks came during the hearing of a plea in a 2019 West Bengal murder case, and the Court warned that repeated reversals threaten judicial discipline, legal certainty, and the constitutional principle of finality in decision-making. Case Background: Plea by Anisur Rahman The observations were made while hearing a plea filed by Anisur Rahman, an accused in a 2019 murder case in West Bengal. Rahman sought modification of a bail condition that prohibited him from leaving Kolkata. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih refused to modify the earlier bail order passed in January, noting that the new application was filed shortly after the judge heading the earlier bench had demitted office. The Court viewed this timing as an attempt to obtain a favorable outcome due to the c...

In a transformative decision set to reshape India’s judicial recruitment framework, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that serving judicial officers with at least seven years of prior practice as advocates are eligible to apply for district judge posts under the quota reserved for the Bar. The judgment, hailed as a milestone, emphasizes inclusivity, merit, and efficiency in the district judiciary — the foundational tier of India’s judicial system. Five-Judge Bench Delivers Constitutionally Significant Ruling A five-judge Constitution Bench , led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R. Gavai , and comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma, and K. Vinod Chandran , delivered the verdict on Thursday. The court held that excluding serving judges who previously practiced law for seven years from the pool of candidates for direct recruitment would be “discriminatory” and detrimental to judicial efficiency . The bench clarified that such officers ca...

🔷 BCI Steps In to Regulate Legal Education Standards In a strong move aimed at maintaining the integrity of India’s legal education ecosystem, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a formal advisory cautioning against unapproved online, distance, or hybrid LL.M. programmes . The advisory reaffirms that only the BCI has statutory authority under the Advocates Act, 1961 to regulate legal education, including postgraduate law courses across India. This advisory is significant amidst the growing number of unauthorized LL.M. degrees offered by private institutions , often under alternate designations like “LL.M. (Professional), Executive LL.M., or M.Sc. in Cyber Law”. 🔷 Who Issued the Advisory? The advisory letter was issued by Justice Rajendra Menon , former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and Co-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legal Education under BCI. It was addressed to: Registrar Generals of all High Courts Registrar of the Supreme Court of India U...

Balwant Singh Rajoana's Mercy Plea: A Case of Delayed Decision on Death Sentence Introduction: The Supreme Court's Latest Directive The Supreme Court of India has directed the Central Government to decide on the mercy petition of Balwant Singh Rajoana , a death-row prisoner convicted for the assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh in 1995. The court has set March 18 as the deadline, warning that if no decision is taken, it will proceed to hear the matter on merits. The Assassination of Beant Singh The case stems from the August 31, 1995 , assassination of Beant Singh, orchestrated via a bomb explosion in Chandigarh. Balwant Singh Rajoana, a sympathizer of the Babbar Khalsa militant group , was convicted and sentenced to death in 2007 by a Chandigarh court. The conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2010. Notably, Rajoana never filed an appeal against the High Court’s decision. Mercy Petition: Grounds and Delay Balwant Singh...