LawLoveLegal

The suspension of a government officer in Karnataka for participating in a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) march has sparked a statewide controversy that intertwines constitutional rights , civil service conduct norms , and political sensitivities . The issue has also reignited debate over the limits of state authority versus the fundamental rights of citizens and the neutrality expected of public servants. Background of the Case The controversy began when Praveen Kumar K.P. , a Panchayat Development Officer from Sirwar taluk in Raichur district , was suspended after being seen in RSS uniform during a route march at Lingsugur on October 12 , part of the organisation’s centenary celebrations . The suspension order, issued by IAS officer Arundhati Chandrashekar , cited violation of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 2021 , which mandate political neutrality among public officials. The officer is to remain under suspension with a subsistence allowance pending a departmen...

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has raised a crucial constitutional question: Can the apex court remain powerless if the President or state governors indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by duly elected legislatures? The matter came up while examining President Droupadi Murmu’s Article 143 reference filed in May 2025, seeking clarity on the judiciary’s role in enforcing timelines for assent to legislation. This debate strikes at the heart of India’s separation of powers and federal structure , questioning whether constitutional discretion vested in high offices should be judicially regulated when used to indefinitely stall governance. Background: The Tamil Nadu Bills Case This presidential reference stems from the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 judgment concerning Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s prolonged inaction over several state bills. The Court invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to , holding that the governor’s delay was “ille...

Section 163-A of HP Land Revenue Act Struck Down In a landmark decision, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has declared Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act as unconstitutional , citing it as violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution . This section, introduced in 2002 , aimed to regularise encroachments on government and forest lands across the state. The ruling was issued in a Civil Writ Petition that had been pending for over two decades and was reserved for judgment since May 2025 . The bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that the provision was arbitrary , discriminatory , and ultra vires the Constitution.

Background: High Court Order Triggers Panic During Peak Apple Harvest On July 2, 2025 , the Himachal Pradesh High Court issued a directive ordering the removal of apple trees planted on encroached forest and government lands across the state, especially in Shimla district . This order, implemented during the peak apple harvesting season, triggered widespread distress among apple farmers and orchard owners. Petition Filed: Apex Court Grants Interim Relief The Supreme Court of India has now granted an interim stay on the felling of apple trees, responding to a petition filed by Tikender Singh Panwar , an environmentalist and former Deputy Mayor of Shimla. Panwar argued that the ongoing removal of fruit-bearing trees was “unscientific, anti-farmer, inhumane, and environmentally disastrous.” Farmer organizations across Himachal welcomed the stay as partial relief and are now intensifying their protests to ensure broader protection for farmers' livelihoods. Farmers' Voice...

  Background: RCB Under Fire for Post-Win Chaos The Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) has approached the Karnataka High Court to challenge remarks made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that held the team prima facie responsible for the stampede outside the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru, which claimed 11 lives after the team’s IPL title victory on June 4, 2025 . CAT’s Observations and Findings In a 29-page order , a CAT bench comprising Justice B.K. Shrivastava and Santosh Mehra ruled that RCB and its event management partner, DNA Entertainment , had not obtained any permission for organising the victory parade and celebrations after the team's historic maiden title win. CAT stated that RCB’s sudden social media announcements led to an uncontrollable crowd surge, reportedly drawing between 3 to 5 lakh people to a venue with a capacity of just 35,000 . According to CAT: RCB “created a nuisance” by announcing...

Supreme Court to Hear Petitions Against Election Commissioners’ Appointment Law Introduction: A Landmark Hearing on Electoral Independence The Supreme Court of India is set to hear multiple petitions on Wednesday, challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 . The primary contention is that this Act excludes the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the selection panel , raising concerns about the independence and neutrality of the Election Commission. Background: What Does the 2023 Act Change? The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 has replaced the earlier selection process that involved a panel comprising: ✅ Prime Minister ✅ Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha ✅ Chief Justice of India (as mandated by the Supreme Court in March 2023) Under the new law, the CJI has been removed , and a Union Cabinet Minister (nominated by the Prime Ministe...

Hindu Outfit Moves SC on Places of Worship Act: A Legal Battle for Religious Rights Introduction to the Plea The Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, a Hindu organization, has approached the Supreme Court, seeking to intervene in cases challenging the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 . This legislation maintains the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947 , preventing alterations or disputes about their status. The Samiti's plea argues that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act infringe on fundamental rights, including the right to equality and the freedom to practice religion. Key Provisions of the Act in Question Section 3 : Prohibits converting any place of worship from one religious denomination to another. Section 4 : Bars filing legal suits or initiating proceedings to alter the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The Act aims to ensure communal harmony by freezing the religious ...

SC Dismisses Petitions to Review Article 370 Verdict The Supreme Court has dismissed petitions seeking a review of its judgment that upheld the Union government's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which conferred special status on Jammu and Kashmir. The five-judge Constitution bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and AS Bopanna, dismissed the review petitions in chamber, noting no apparent error in the original verdict delivered on December 11, 2022. Supreme Court's Decision on Review Petitions On May 1, the Supreme Court stated, "Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. There is no case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed." This ruling reaffirmed the court's earlier decision that upheld the abrogation of Article 370, labeling it a "tempor...

Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Appeal Against Madras High Court Order on Watching Child Porn The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on an appeal challenging the ruling of the Madras High Court, which stated that downloading and possessing child pornography is not considered a crime. This decision has sparked significant debate and concern regarding the legal framework surrounding such offenses. Bench's Consideration and Verdict Reservation A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala heard arguments from both parties before reserving the verdict. The court has allowed the parties involved to submit written submissions by Monday, indicating the complexity and importance of the case. Appeal and High Court Ruling The appeal was filed by NGOs Just Rights for Children Alliance and Bachpan Bachao Andolan against the Madras High Court's ruling in January. The High Court's decision essentially stated that simply downloading and watching c...