LawLoveLegal

I. INTRODUCTION The appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before the Delhi High Court challenging the discharge of former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in the Delhi excise policy case raises significant questions about criminal procedure, judicial discretion at the stage of charge, and the limits of judicial scrutiny before trial. The Special Judge, Jitendra Singh, in an order dated February 27, discharged all 23 accused persons, holding that the material on record did not disclose even a prima facie case, much less a grave suspicion. The CBI has described this order as “patently illegal” and has alleged that the judge conducted a “mini trial” at the stage of framing of charge. This controversy brings into focus the statutory framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure, constitutional protections, and binding judicial precedents governing discharge and framing of charges. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The 2...

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 The Supreme Court of India has directed the Union Government to place before it, within four weeks, a comprehensive and uniform proposal on the functioning of tribunals across the country. The Court emphasised that tribunals, as specialised quasi-judicial bodies, cannot be allowed to become dysfunctional or defunct due to administrative or legislative lapses. This directive follows a series of constitutional challenges and judicial interventions concerning the tribunal system and its independence.

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has expressed grave concern over large-scale cyber frauds, describing the siphoning of more than ₹54,000 crore through digital fraud as nothing short of “robbery or dacoity.” In a significant intervention, the Court has directed the Union Government and regulatory authorities to frame a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) to tackle cyber-enabled financial crimes, particularly the emerging menace of ‘digital arrest’ frauds.

Introduction A high-speed crash involving a luxury Lamborghini allegedly driven by Shivam Mishra, son of tobacco businessman K.K. Mishra, has left at least six people injured in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The incident, which occurred around 3:15 PM near Rev-3 Mall in the Gwaltoli area, has triggered public outrage and raised serious legal questions relating to criminal liability, road safety laws, and the treatment of high-profile accused persons in India’s criminal justice system.

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 ...

In a moment that will be remembered in India’s constitutional history, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee became the first sitting CM to personally argue her own case before the Supreme Court —turning a routine election-law dispute into a defining battle over democracy, federalism, and voter disenfranchisement . Appearing before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , Banerjee urged the Court to “protect democracy” and “protect people’s lives”, as the Court examined the legality and fairness of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI) ahead of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections. Why This Hearing Was Unprecedented While politicians routinely challenge constitutional authorities through lawyers, a sitting chief minister personally addressing the Supreme Court is virtually unheard of . Banerjee, a trained advocate, made a 15-minute oral intervention—granted by the Court itself—asserting th...

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...

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 The recent grant of parole to Priya Seth , a life-term convict in the infamous Jaipur “Tinder suitcase murder” case , to solemnise her marriage has reignited a nationwide debate on criminal justice, victims’ rights, prison reforms, and the limits of parole jurisprudence. The case presents a disturbing intersection of digital-era crime , heinous murder , and constitutional protections afforded even to convicted prisoners . This article examines the incident through the lens of relevant statutes, constitutional provisions, and judicial precedents , while situating the controversy within India’s evolving prison and parole framework. Factual Background of the Crime In early 2018, Dushyant Sharma , a 27-year-old aspiring businessman, matched with Priya Seth on the dating application Tinder. Their online interactions spanned weeks, fostering trust and emotional familiarity. Unbeknownst to Sharma, Priya was cohabiting with Dikshant Kamra , burdened by debts exceeding ₹21 la...

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concern over the alarming rise of so-called “digital arrest” frauds, particularly highlighting how even highly educated and experienced senior citizens are falling prey to sophisticated cyber scams. The court’s observations came while issuing notice on a petition filed by a 78-year-old former banker who lost more than ₹23 crore after being impersonated and coerced by fraudsters posing as law enforcement officials. The case underscores systemic vulnerabilities in banking safeguards, cybercrime response mechanisms, and public awareness, prompting the apex court to intensify its scrutiny of institutional accountability. Background of the Case The observations arose from a petition filed by Naresh Malhotra , a 78-year-old former banker, who was allegedly defrauded in September last year in what is being described as the largest reported “digital arrest” fraud in India so far , involving losses exceeding ₹23 crore. Malhotra claim...

Background of the Case The Supreme Court is currently examining a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) June 24 notification directing a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The petitions were filed in 2025 and raise serious constitutional and statutory questions concerning voter deletion, citizenship determination, and the scope of the Election Commission’s powers. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi , which sought to ascertain the true intent behind the SIR exercise. Supreme Court’s Core Question: Citizenship or Electoral Hygiene? During the hearing, the Supreme Court posed a pointed question to the ECI: “When you started this exercise, was citizenship in your mind or are you second-guessing it as a reason to begin this exercise?” The Court noted that the SIR notification primarily cited migration, urbanisation, and the need to update electoral entries as...

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...