Latest Post

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Section 376 (3) IPC — Rape — Conviction upheld — Evidence of victim’s mother and medical evidence — Reliability of victim’s mother’s testimony confirmed despite lengthy cross-examination, finding it natural and trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence — Medical evidence, though partially presented by defense, conclusively supported sexual assault, citing perineal tear and abrasions around anus Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 6 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2005) — Retrospective application — Validity of pre-amendment sale deeds — The prohibition contained in the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not affect registered sale deeds executed prior to December 20, 2004 (date of introduction of the amending provision) — This principle aligns with the judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1. Judicial Process — Misuse of process — Challenging bail conditions previously offered voluntarily — Accused offering substantial deposits to secure bail and subsequently challenging the onerous nature of conditions or the counsel’s authority to make such offers — This practice is condemned for undermining the judicial process and preventing consideration of bail applications on their merits — Such conduct leads to setting aside of bail orders and remittal for fresh consideration. Social Media Posts — Content-Related Offenses — Retaliatory Action — Quashing of Proceedings — While the court made no final determination on the nature of the petitioner’s social media posts, it acknowledged the petitioner’s counsel’s submission that the tweets were ‘retaliatory’ and were made in response to an incident involving a social media influencer. This assertion formed part of the petitioner’s argument for quashing or consolidating the numerous FIRs, suggesting a motive beyond simple offensive content. Legal Profession — Autonomy and Independence — Administration of Justice — Role of Lawyers — Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India — Impact of direct summons to defence counsel by Investigating Agencies on the autonomy of the legal profession and the independence of the administration of justice — Need for judicial oversight.

Maradu Flats Case – This Court direct that the amount of Rs.6.12 crores + 1.50 crores lying in deposit to the account of M/s.Jain Housing & Constructions Ltd. be disbursed on pro rata basis to the flat owners and agreement holders of M/s. Jain Housing & Constructions Ltd.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY MEMBER SECRETARY — Appellant Vs. MARADU MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and…

Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 as amended in 2019 granting 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is not covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Sup3 SCC 217.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL — Appellant Vs. THE CHIEF MINISTER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer, L. Nageswara…

Held If the remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, a Habeas Corpus petition would indeed lie. Equally, if an order of remand is passed in an absolutely mechanical manner, the person affected can seek the remedy of Habeas Corpus. Barring such situations, a Habeas Corpus petition will not lie.

  Thus, we would hold as follows: If the remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, a Habeas Corpus petition would…

Private unaided schools in Rajasthan shall collect annual school fees from their students as fixed under the Act of 2016 for the academic year 2019-20, but by providing deduction of 15 per cent on that amount in lieu of unutilised facilities by the students during the relevant period of academic year 2020-21

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN SCHOOL, JODHPUR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.…

You missed