LawLoveLegal

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.

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...

Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed and strengthened the powers of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to impose environmental compensation (EC) by holding that project cost and scale of operations are valid and relevant factors while computing compensation for environmental violations. The ruling arose from two civil appeals challenging orders of the NGT Western Zone Bench, Pune , which had imposed substantial environmental compensation on two real estate developers in Maharashtra. Facts of the Two Appeals Rhythm County Project Project Cost: ₹335 crore Environmental Compensation Imposed: ₹5 crore (approximately 2% of project cost) NGT Order Date: August 2022 Keystone Properties Project Project Cost: ₹76 crore Environmental Compensation Imposed: ₹4.47 crore (approximately 5.88% of project cost) NGT Order Date: September 2022 Both developers challenged the NGT orders before the Supreme Court, arguing that: The compensation was excessive and disproport...

Introduction The Supreme Court’s decision to list for hearing a plea challenging the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 has reopened a critical debate on how caste-based discrimination is defined, addressed, and remedied in Indian higher education institutions (HEIs). The challenge, filed in Rahul Dewan and Ors. v. Union of India , raises fundamental constitutional questions: Can anti-discrimination regulations selectively protect certain caste groups while excluding others? And can regulatory dilution be justified in the name of administrative flexibility? Background of the Supreme Court Proceedings While agreeing to list the matter, the Chief Justice of India observed that defects in the petition must be cured before formal listing. The petitioner’s core grievance is that the 2026 Regulations create a narrow and exclusionary framework for caste-based discrimination by limiting its scope primarily to Scheduled Cast...

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 ...

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...

Background of the Case In a significant ruling highlighting the judiciary’s concern over prolonged matrimonial litigation, the Supreme Court of India dissolved a marriage that lasted only 65 days , where the spouses have lived separately for over 13 years and were entangled in more than 40 civil and criminal cases against each other. The marriage was solemnised on January 28, 2012 . Within 65 days, the wife left the matrimonial home alleging cruelty by the husband and his family members . Since then, the parties have remained estranged, litigating across courts in Delhi, Allahabad, Ghaziabad and Lucknow , effectively turning the judicial system into a forum for sustained personal conflict. Proceedings Before the Supreme Court The matter came before a Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan . The wife approached the Supreme Court invoking Article 142 of the Constitution , seeking: Dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown Quashing of multiple pending...

I. Introduction The prolonged standoff between Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi and the DMK-led government under Chief Minister M K Stalin has once again come into sharp focus following the Governor’s walkout from the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly . What appears on the surface as a disagreement over speeches and protocol raises deeper constitutional questions about the role of Governors in India’s federal structure , the limits of their discretion , and the authority of elected state governments . II. Background of the Conflict The conflict between the Governor and the state government has not emerged overnight. It has evolved over several years, manifesting through disputes over: The Governor’s Assembly address Delay or refusal to grant assent to Bills Public comments by the Governor on governance issues Alleged interference by the Union government via Raj Bhavans The friction became visibly public when Governor Ravi walked out of the Assembly , refusing to read the full government-ap...

Courts Cannot Recall Signed Orders Except for Clerical Errors I. Background of the Case In a rare and procedurally significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India restored anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a narcotics case after holding that the Patna High Court acted without jurisdiction in recalling a bail order that had already been signed. The case highlights a critical question of criminal procedure: Can a court undo a signed judicial order because of an internal staff error? The Supreme Court answered with a clear no . II. FIR and Allegations Under NDPS Act The case originated from an FIR registered in October 2024 in Vaishali district, Bihar , under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) . Key Allegations: 6.33 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from a co-accused During interrogation, the co-accused claimed that the contraband was meant to be delivered to Rambali Sahni No recovery was made from Sahni S...