LawLoveLegal

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...

Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the scope of personal liberty under the Constitution, holding that pending criminal proceedings cannot be a ground for indefinitely denying the renewal of a passport . The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih , allowing an appeal filed by Mahesh Kumar Agarwal , an accused in a National Investigation Agency (NIA) case related to alleged extortion and terror funding activities in Jharkhand’s coal mining belt. The Court set aside judgments of the Calcutta High Court , which had earlier upheld the refusal of passport renewal by the Regional Passport Office (RPO), Kolkata. Factual Matrix Mahesh Kumar Agarwal’s passport expired in August 2023 . At the time: He was facing trial in an NIA case pending before a Special Court in Ranchi. He was also convicted in a CBI coal block allocation case , though his sentence had been suspended by t...

In a significant ruling that strengthens constitutional protections for the accused, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest to an accused person renders both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal . The judgment also confirmed the bail of Shivani Agarwal , who was arrested in connection with the high-profile Pune Porsche crash case . Case Background: Pune Porsche Crash and Allegations The case stems from the May 19, 2024 , Pune incident where a minor , while driving a Porsche allegedly owned by his father, ran over and killed two IT professionals — Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta . The incident triggered nationwide outrage over reckless driving and alleged procedural lapses during investigation. The minor’s mother, Shivani Agarwal , was arrested for allegedly tampering with her son’s blood samples to shield him from legal consequences. She had been in judicial custody for over ten months before the Supreme Court granted a...

Compensation for Prolonged Detention The Supreme Court of India has ordered the state of Madhya Pradesh to pay ₹25 lakh compensation to a man who remained in prison for over four years and seven months beyond his lawful sentence . The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan .

SC Seeks Centre’s Response on Muslim Woman’s Plea for Indian Succession Act Over Sharia Law The Case at a Glance The Supreme Court of India has directed the Central Government to respond to a petition filed by a Kerala-based Muslim woman, Safiya PM , who seeks to be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 , instead of Muslim Personal Law (Sharia Law) regarding inheritance. A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna , along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan , has given the government four weeks to file its response, with the hearing scheduled for May 2025 . Why Is the Woman Challenging Sharia Law? The petitioner, a non-believer Muslim , argues that since she does not practice Islam, she should be governed by secular inheritance laws rather than religious laws. ✔️ Sharia Law Restriction – Under Sharia law , a Muslim individual can only bequeath one-third of their property via a will. The remaining two-thirds is distributed according to Islamic inheritance rul...

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 ...

Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines Background In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set out guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, commonly referred to as "bulldozer justice." This term has emerged from instances where properties of individuals accused of crimes have been demolished without following due legal process. The ruling responds to several petitions highlighting the destruction of residential and commercial properties without prior notice, which, according to petitioners, targets marginalized and minority communities. Key Principles Addressed The Supreme Court’s decision rests on critical constitutional principles, particularly the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights . The Court emphasized that no person should be punished without due process and that arbitrary action by the executive undermines citizens’ trust in the justice system. Justice Gavai, in del...

AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan Challenges Arrest: Claims Unprecedented Assault on Fundamental Rights Amanatullah Khan , a prominent Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)  MLA from Okhla , has approached the Delhi High Court , challenging his recent arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) . In his petition, Khan argues that his arrest not only violates his fundamental rights  but also represents a misuse of legal powers for political motives. He terms his arrest as an “unprecedented assault” on the basic rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution . Allegations and Arrest Khan was arrested in connection with a money laundering case  related to alleged irregularities during his tenure as the Chairperson of the Delhi Waqf Board . The case also involves the acquisition of a Rs 36 crore property in Okhla. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been investigating Khan's financial dealings as part of its broader scrutiny into alleged financial mismanagement and disproportionate assets during hi...

SC Reiterates Bail as the Rule, Jail as the Exception The Supreme Court of India has once again underscored the principle that bail should be the rule, and jail the exception. This reiteration came in a recent ruling where the apex court granted bail to an accused, Prem Prakash, in a money laundering case. The court emphasized the importance of not using statements given by an accused under custody as admissible evidence, especially when such statements are made under duress or coercion.  Inadmissibility of Statements Under PMLA Custody The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan ruled that any statement made by an accused under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) while in custody is inadmissible. The court stressed that an accused in custody cannot be considered to be acting with a free mind, and any statement made under such circumstances could be unsafe and unjust to be used against them. This ruling came in the context of ...

Supreme Court Upholds Fundamental Rights in Politicians' Bail Conditions Case Introduction: In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court of India made a significant ruling regarding bail conditions imposed on politicians, sparking discussions on the delicate balance between legal requirements and fundamental rights. The apex court asserted that imposing restrictions on politicians' participation in political activities as a condition for bail would violate their fundamental rights. Legal Ruling by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on March 22, overturned a bail condition set by the Orissa High Court, which prohibited a politician from engaging in political activities. Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta deemed such restrictions as an infringement upon the appellant's fundamental rights and subsequently quashed the imposed condition. Case Background: The case centered around Siba Shankar Das, a prominent leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (B...