LawLoveLegal

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...