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: When Justice Is Delayed Beyond Reason In a significant reaffirmation of its role as the final arbiter of justice, the Supreme Court of India invoked its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 to bring closure to a 35-year-old civil property dispute , ensuring that the successful litigant finally enjoys the fruits of a decree granted in his favour as far back as 1990 . The case highlights systemic delays in civil litigation, abuse of procedural remedies, and the judiciary’s increasing willingness to step in decisively when ordinary legal processes fail. Background of the Dispute: A Sale Agreement from 1973 The litigation traces its origins to 1973 , when Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale entered into an agreement to purchase 36 gunthas of land situated in Dhayari village, Pune , from the original owner Rajaram Bajirao Pokale . Despite receiving consideration, Pokale failed to execute the sale deed, compelling Bhonsale to initiate specific performance proceedin...

The Supreme Court of India has issued a sharply worded order addressing a shocking 16-year delay in an acid attack case pending in Delhi. Terming the prolonged pendency a “national shame,” the Court has directed all High Courts to furnish updated information on all pending acid attack trials within four weeks. The order emerged during the hearing of a PIL filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik , whose own case registered in 2009 remains unresolved in a Rohini court. Background of the Case During the hearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi , the Court expressed deep anguish over the systemic delays plaguing acid attack trials. The judges highlighted the disturbing fact that a survivor like Malik has waited 16 years for justice, calling such delays a mockery of the criminal justice system. The Court emphasised that when such delays occur even in the national capital, they reflect a nationwide systemic failure. The Bench issued notices...

Nearly two decades after one of India’s most horrifying crime sprees shocked the nation, the families of the Nithari victims have once again been gripped by despair. As the Supreme Court reserved its verdict in the last pending case against Surendra Koli , one of the two main accused, its remarks suggesting that upholding his conviction would be a “travesty of justice” have reignited old wounds in Noida’s Nithari village . Families React: ‘We Have Lost All Hope’ For the families who lost their children in the 2006 Nithari killings , the recent court developments have reopened painful memories. A 63-year-old father , whose 10-year-old daughter’s remains were recovered from the now-infamous D-5 bungalow in Sector 31 , said: “My daughter went missing while returning from school. Since then, I fought for justice, selling everything I had. But now, we have lost all faith. Only God can punish the killers of my child.” His wife added that she had foreseen the collapse of the case wh...

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...

Delhi Riots Case 2020: High Court Dismisses Sharjeel Imam's Plea for Early Hearing of Bail Petition The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Sharjeel Imam, seeking an early hearing of his bail plea, which has been pending for the last 28 months. Imam, a former Ph.D. student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), has been in custody since January 28, 2020, as one of the accused in the larger conspiracy case of the Delhi Riots 2020. Dismissal of Plea for Early Hearing The division bench, led by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, rejected the plea, emphasizing that the bail matter is already scheduled for a hearing on October 7, 2024. The court saw no necessity for advancing the hearing date. Imam had filed this petition challenging the trial court's order, dated April 11, 2022, which had dismissed his regular bail application. Timeline of Appeal and Delays The plea highlighted that the appeal against the trial court’s order has been pending for 28 months, which has led to pr...