LawLoveLegal

Introduction In a significant ruling on matrimonial jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that a long period of separation between a husband and wife, with no possibility of reconciliation, amounts to cruelty to both parties . The Court observed that prolonged matrimonial litigation results in the perpetuation of a marriage only on paper, serving neither the interests of the parties nor that of society. Invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution , the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown , reiterating that mental cruelty can arise from sustained separation and rigid refusal to accommodate each other. Bench and Background of the Case Composition of the Bench The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi , with Justice Manmohan authoring the opinion for the Court. Marriage and Separation Timeline The parties were married on August 4, 2000 Matrimonial disp...

Introduction In a landmark judgment underscoring the constitutional obligation to eliminate dowry, the Supreme Court of India has observed that eradicating the dowry system is not merely a matter of statutory enforcement but a constitutional imperative . The Court has urged the Union and State governments to consider amending educational curricula to raise awareness among young citizens about the social evil of dowry and has directed High Courts to compile data on pending dowry-related cases to ensure their expeditious disposal. Background of the Case The directions were issued while deciding a 24-year-old criminal appeal arising from a dowry death case registered in 2001 in Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh . The accused, Aslam Beg , was convicted for setting his wife, who was barely 20 years old , on fire. In October 2003 , a trial court convicted Aslam Beg and his mother Jamila , sentencing them to life imprisonment . In 2017 , the Allahabad High Court acquitted both accused. The Supreme...

Background of the Case In a significant judgment strengthening workplace safety for women, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) can be initiated at the workplace of the complainant , even if the accused employee belongs to a different department or employer . The ruling settles a long-standing ambiguity on the jurisdiction of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) and rejects the narrow interpretation that only the ICC of the accused employee’s department can inquire into allegations of sexual harassment. Facts of the Case The appellant was a 2010-batch Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer . The complainant was a 2004-batch Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer , posted in the Department of Food and Public Distribution . The alleged incident of sexual harassment took place in May 2023 at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi , a common government workplace. The ...

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has strongly reaffirmed the finality and binding nature of Constitution Bench judgments , rejecting a writ petition that sought to reopen the settled issue of minority educational institutions’ exemption from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) . In a stern order, the Court not only dismissed the plea but also imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner NGO , calling the petition a “gross abuse” of judicial process and a threat to the institutional integrity of the judiciary. Background of the Petition Petitioner and Relief Sought The petition was filed by an NGO, United Voice for Education Forum , invoking Article 32 of the Constitution , seeking: A declaration that the exemption granted to minority educational institutions from the RTE Act is unconstitutional Inclusion of minority schools— aided and unaided —within the ambit of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act , which mandates 25% reservation at entry leve...

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has refused to grant bail to Mihir Shah , the prime accused in the July 2024 Mumbai BMW hit-and-run case , making strong observations on parental responsibility, privilege, and reckless conduct. The Court’s remarks—“such boys need to be taught a lesson”—underline a growing judicial intolerance towards grave road crimes involving wealthy and influential individuals. Case Background: Mumbai BMW Hit-and-Run Incident (July 2024) Incident Details In July 2024, Mihir Shah, aged 24, was allegedly driving a BMW at high speed on Worli Sea Face Road, Mumbai , when his vehicle struck a couple riding a scooter. Victims : Pradeep Nakhwa (survived) His wife (died on the spot) Manner of Accident : After the collision, Pradeep Nakhwa was flung off the bonnet. His wife’s body was allegedly dragged for nearly two kilometres . Despite hearing screams, the accused allegedly continued driving . Post-Accident Conduct : The accused went absconding after the incident...

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the interim release of Sonia and her husband Sanjeev Kumar, who were convicted of killing eight members of Sonia’s family in August 2001. The court simultaneously directed the Haryana government to reconsider their premature release application within two months, strictly in accordance with the applicable remission policy. Background of the 2001 Hisar Mass Murder Case On the night of August 23, 2001, eight members of the Punia family were killed at their farmhouse on the outskirts of Hisar. The victims included: • Relu Ram Punia (50), former MLA of Barwala constituency • Krishna Devi (41) • A 14-year-old daughter • Sunil Kumar (23), son from first marriage • Daughter-in-law Shakuntala Devi (20) • A 4-year-old grandson • Two granddaughters, including a two-month-old infant According to the prosecution, Sonia and Sanjeev retrieved an iron rod from the garage after midnight and murdered the family members individually in separate ro...

The Supreme Court’s latest observations during the petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar raise important constitutional and statutory questions. The core issue is whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) can inquire into "doubtful citizenship" while revising electoral rolls, without assuming the authority to declare someone a citizen or non-citizen. Issue 1: Court Clarifies ECI Is Not Claiming Power to Determine Citizenship The Supreme Court clarified that the ECI has not claimed any constitutional authority to decide citizenship. The bench noted: ECI’s question is not about declaring someone a citizen or non-citizen, but about whether it can conduct inquisitorial inquiries into doubtful entries during voter roll revision. The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked: If an electoral roll has doubtful inclusions, would it not fall within ECI’s constitutional mandate to investigate? This sets th...

The Supreme Court of India has once again reaffirmed a core constitutional promise: governance must empower, not burden, citizens. In a landmark judgment led by Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar , the Court struck down an additional bureaucratic requirement imposed by the Jharkhand government, calling it illegal, superfluous, and contrary to principles of good governance. This article examines the statutory background, constitutional foundations, judicial reasoning, and broader relevance of this decision. 1. Constitutional Value of Simplicity and Good Governance The Supreme Court emphasised that simplicity in public transactions is a constitutional value . Procedural efficiency forms part of good governance , which flows from: Relevant Constitutional Provisions Article 14 – Mandates non-arbitrariness in State action; unnecessary procedural barriers violate the equality principle. Article 21 – Expands to include administrative fairness and efficiency; e...

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...

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a parent working from home (WFH) cannot automatically be considered more suitable for child custody than a parent who physically travels to work. In a significant judgment addressing the realities of modern working families, the Court held that the welfare of the child—not parental work arrangements—is the paramount consideration in custody disputes. Contemporary Context: Hybrid Work Culture and Custody Claims The ruling comes amid rising reliance on remote and hybrid work models, where many litigants argue that being physically present at home enhances their caregiving ability. However, the Supreme Court has cautioned against such simplified assumptions. A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that in the current socio-economic environment, both parents frequently work to provide economic stability , and physical presence at home does not necessarily translate into availability, emotional nurturing, or superior careg...

A Detailed Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance Ruling INTRODUCTION: THE SUPREME COURT REOPENS EX POST FACTO CLEARANCES In Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti & Ors. , 2025, a two-judge majority (Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran) reopened the possibility of granting ex post facto Environmental Clearances (ECs) — approvals given after construction has already begun. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented. The verdict effectively reverses the landmark May 2024 judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India , which categorically prohibited such retroactive approvals. This ruling marks one of the most consequential environmental decisions in recent years, reopening the door for developers to operate without prior scrutiny, and later regularise the project with penalties or corrective measures. BACKGROUND: THE MAY 2024 VANASHAKTI JUDGMENT The original Vanashakti v. Union of India judgment (May...

The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant caution regarding the regulation of digital platforms like YouTube, stressing that excessively rigid controls could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. While acknowledging the urgent need to prevent misuse of online spaces and protect individual rights, the Court reiterated that any regulatory mechanism must be balanced, flexible, and constitutionally sound. Supreme Court’s Emphasis on a Balanced Digital Regulatory Framework During the hearing on Monday, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted that the rising misuse of YouTube and similar platforms demands stringent oversight. However, the judges warned that harsh and inflexible rules could unintentionally impose a gag on free expression and lead to devastating consequences for digital creators and public discourse. The Bench stated that increasing incidents of online content violating privacy, dignity, and individual r...