sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

June 4, 2025

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT WINT WEALTH

Leave a Comment / JOB /

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT WINT WEALTH Sweta Kumari About Wint Wealth Established in 2020, Wint Wealth is one of India’s largest online bond platforms, trusted by over 70,000+ investors. With retail investments exceeding Rs. 2000 crore, it continues to empower retail investors through accessible and secure bond investments. It is an online bond platform provider (OBPP) registered with SEBI as a debt broker. About the Job Wint Wealth is looking to hire high-intent and driven individuals to join the Legal and Compliance Team. Eligibility Criteria Education: A law degree (3 year or 5 year) from any renowned institution. Qualified Company Secretary from the Institute of Company Secretaries of India. Experience: 2-4 years of experience working in law firms or in-house teams in a company and in an extremely fast-paced environment You possess working experience in secretarial functions preferably in a NBFC or Fintech company. Preference will be given to candidates who have worked in functions related to listed debt companies or listed entities. Candidates with working knowledge of RBI and SEBI regulations will be preferred. Technical Proficiency: Proficiency in Companies Act, 2013, RBI and SEBI regulations. Basic MS office skills. Location Bengaluru How to Apply? Shared you updated CV along with cover letter to rishab@wintwealth.com   Never miss an opportunity! Click to join our whatsapp channel More Oppurtunities LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT WINT WEALTH LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT WINT WEALTH Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MERAKI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MERAKI LEGAL Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 1 2 3 Next »

LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT WINT WEALTH Read More »

JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MERAKI LEGAL

Leave a Comment / JOB /

JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MERAKI LEGAL Eshika Sahay About the Job Meraki Legal, Mumbai, which is a law firm based out of Sion and Fort in Mumbai, with practice areas spanning across Civil and Commercial litigation, Criminal litigation, Family matters, Arbitration matters and society matters, are on the look out for a law graduate of the batch of 2024 with Sanad to join their team. Eligibility Criteria Law graduate of the batch of 2024 Salary Salary will be commensurate with the skill sets of the individual and will be as per industry standards. How to Apply? Kindly send your CVs to advocategaurij@gmail.com   Never miss an opportunity! Click to join our whatsapp channel More Oppurtunities JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MERAKI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MERAKI LEGAL Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MSGIP ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MSGIP ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 1 2 3 Next »

JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MERAKI LEGAL Read More »

INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

Leave a Comment / Internship /

INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH Eshika Sahay About the PRS Legislative Research PRS Legislative Research, commonly referred to as PRS, is an Indian non-profit organization established in September 2005 as an independent research institute to make the Indian legislative process better informed, more transparent, and participatory. PRS is based in New Delhi. About the Opportunity PRS Legislative Research is inviting applications for its offline research internship in Delhi in July 2025. Mode Physical (In-office); Interns will have to report to the office. Expectations from Interns In addition to a deep interest in the working of Parliament and the legislative process in India, an intern should have: Strong writing skills Strong analytical skills Stipend Please note that no accommodation or remuneration is provided. This is strictly an unpaid internship. Important Date 20 June 2025 Location PRS Legislative Research 3rd Floor, Gandharva Mahavidyalaya, 212, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi – 110002 How to Apply? Interested persons can fill in the application form. The form has to be filled out in one session, and there is no option of saving responses. Click Here to Apply You are expected to: write a short statement of purpose (not more than 500 words). upload an up-to-date resume in PDF format. upload a writing sample on any policy issue (not more than 1000 words) in PDF format. Important Date For any queries, please write to internship@prsindia.org Never miss an opportunity! Click to join our whatsapp channel More Oppurtunities INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MSGIP ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MSGIP ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT A.G. & ASSOCIATES LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT A.G. & ASSOCIATES Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 1 2 3 Next »

INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH Read More »

Ajaz Khan Seeks Anticipatory Bail from Bombay High Court in Rape Case Involving Actress

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH Ajaz Khan Seeks Anticipatory Bail from Bombay High Court in Rape Case Involving Actress INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MSGIP ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT A.G. & ASSOCIATES Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra Condemns Arrest of Sharmishta Panoli, Demands Immediate Release Over Social Media Controversy Supreme Court Petitioned After Alleged Police Assault on Journalists Reporting on Madhya Pradesh Sand Mafia Ajaz Khan Seeks Anticipatory Bail from Bombay High Court in Rape Case Involving Actress PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 04 June 2025 Actor Ajaz Khan seeks anticipatory bail from the Bombay High Court after being accused of rape under false promises of marriage and career advancement. The court earlier denied his plea citing possible tampering with evidence. Ajaz Khan Moves Bombay High Court for Anticipatory Bail in Rape Case Actor Ajaz Khan has approached the Bombay High Court seeking anticipatory bail after a lower court rejected his initial request. He faces serious allegations of raping a fellow actress by misleading her with false promises of marriage and career opportunities. FIR Accuses Khan of Deception and Sexual Assault According to the FIR, Khan, 40, allegedly lured the complainant—an aspiring actress—by offering her a role in the reality show “House Arrest”, which he hosts. The victim stated that Khan used this professional opportunity to gain her trust and then violated her consent. Details of the Complaint and Timeline of Incidents The complaint outlines two major incidents. The first allegedly occurred on April 4 at Khan’s residence in Lodha Bel, Jogeshwari (West), and the second on April 24 at the complainant’s home. During both occasions, the actress claimed Khan sexually assaulted her while making promises of marriage and financial support. Legal Strategy and Defense Argument Khan, whose full name is Ajaz Shafi Mohammad Guliwala, filed his bail plea through prominent lawyer Ashok Saraogi. The application argues that the complaint is legally flawed and asserts that custodial interrogation is unnecessary. Previous Bail Plea Rejected by Sessions Court Previously, the Dindoshi Sessions Court had denied Khan’s pre-arrest bail, citing risks of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. The court emphasized the importance of retrieving Khan’s mobile phone and verifying digital evidence such as WhatsApp chats and voice recordings. It also called for the collection of his voice samples to support the investigation. Court Notes Consent Was Not Informed or Voluntary Although the complainant is legally an adult, the court observed that her consent may not have been free and voluntary, a key requirement under Indian law in such cases. It highlighted the actor’s prior criminal record and justified the need for custodial interrogation. Conclusion: The ongoing case against Ajaz Khan adds to his controversial public image, bringing to light serious concerns about the misuse of influence and celebrity status. With the matter now in the hands of the Bombay High Court, the coming days will be crucial in determining the next steps in this high-profile legal battle. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Ajaz Khan Seeks Anticipatory Bail from Bombay High Court in Rape Case Involving Actress Ajaz Khan Seeks Anticipatory Bail from Bombay High Court in Rape Case Involving Actress Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra Condemns Arrest of Sharmishta Panoli, Demands Immediate Release Over Social Media Controversy BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra Condemns Arrest of Sharmishta Panoli, Demands Immediate Release Over Social Media Controversy Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Petitioned After Alleged Police Assault on Journalists Reporting on Madhya Pradesh Sand Mafia Supreme Court Petitioned After Alleged Police Assault on Journalists Reporting on Madhya Pradesh Sand Mafia Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Ajaz Khan Seeks Anticipatory Bail from Bombay High Court in Rape Case Involving Actress Read More »

INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MSGIP ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS

Leave a Comment / Internship /

INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MSGIP ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS Eshika Sahay About MSGIP Advocates & Attorneys MSG IP Attorneys is a rising intellectual property and corporate law firm. Established in 2012, it has been facilitating our clients in protecting, enforcing, defending, and monetising their intellectual property rights in India and also have over two decades of litigation experience at all levels of the judicial hierarchy. The associates of the firm also have vast experience in IP, corporate law, Arbitration and criminal Law. About the Job It is pleased to invite applications for their Virtual Internship Program for June 2025 at MSGIP Advocates and Attorneys, a New Delhi-based firm specialising in Intellectual Property Law, Commercial Litigation, Trademarks, Copyright, and Industrial Designs. Eligibility Criteria Strong Communication skills Excellent research and analytical abilities Ability to work collaboratively and under supervision Availability for the full 2-week period Law student (Any year) Duration 2 Weeks (June 2025) Mode Online (Virtual Internship) Stipend Performance-Based How to Apply? Send them your CV at interns.msgip@gmail.com Never miss an opportunity! Click to join our whatsapp channel More Oppurtunities INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MSGIP ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MSGIP ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT A.G. & ASSOCIATES LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT A.G. & ASSOCIATES Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF NUNIWAL LAW CHAMBERS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF NUNIWAL LAW CHAMBERS Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 1 2 3 Next »

INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MSGIP ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS Read More »

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT A.G. & ASSOCIATES

Leave a Comment / Internship /

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT A.G. & ASSOCIATES Sweta Kumari About the Job A.G. & Associates is having a few openings in their firm A.G. & Associates for both Litigation and Non-Litigation. Only people who are serious about joining may apply. Eligibility Criteria For Litigation Profile: 4th or 5th-year LL.B. students Prior internship experience mandatory Stipend will be paid For Non-Litigation Profile: Corporate & Secretarial Work LL.B. students with an interest in corporate law Preference to candidates pursuing CS Stipend will be paid How to Apply? The firm has diversified work, and you will get ample opportunity to learn. Share your CV at legal@agandassociates.in   Never miss an opportunity! Click to join our whatsapp channel More Oppurtunities LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT A.G. & ASSOCIATES LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT A.G. & ASSOCIATES Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF NUNIWAL LAW CHAMBERS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF NUNIWAL LAW CHAMBERS Sadalaw • June 4, 2025 ESSAY WRITING COMPETITION BY TNNLU ESSAY WRITING COMPETITION BY TNNLU Sadalaw • June 3, 2025 1 2 3 Next »

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT A.G. & ASSOCIATES Read More »

Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra Condemns Arrest of Sharmishta Panoli, Demands Immediate Release Over Social Media Controversy Supreme Court Petitioned After Alleged Police Assault on Journalists Reporting on Madhya Pradesh Sand Mafia Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Assam’s Deportation Policy on Bangladeshi Infiltration Supreme Court Orders Medical Care for Disabled Rape Survivor Under Victim Compensation Scheme LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF NUNIWAL LAW CHAMBERS Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) REHA BHARGAV 02 June 2025 Supreme Court grants bail to Ankur Chaudhary in a landmark judgment affirming that prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21, even under the stringent NDPS Act. Learn how trial delays impact personal liberty and bail rights in drug-related cases. Introduction The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh highlights the crucial balance between enforcing the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and protecting fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Despite allegations of manufacturing commercial quantities of Alprazolam, the petitioner was granted bail due to excessive trial delay violating his right to personal liberty. Case Facts On April 29, 2022, Ankur Chaudhary was arrested in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, accused of illegally manufacturing approximately 151.8 kilograms of Alprazolam, a controlled psychotropic substance. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on confessional statements from co-accused, while two key witnesses did not support the allegations. Despite the serious charges, Chaudhary remained in custody for over two years without meaningful trial progress. Legal Issue Does prolonged incarceration without trial violate the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, thereby justifying bail even when barred by Section 37 of the NDPS Act? Arguments from the Petitioner The petitioner’s counsel argued that continuous detention without a speedy trial infringes on the constitutional right to liberty. The defense highlighted weak prosecution evidence and stressed the presumption of innocence. They urged bail as justice delayed is justice denied. Arguments from the Respondent The State of Madhya Pradesh emphasized the gravity of the offense under the NDPS Act, pointing to the commercial quantity of narcotics seized. It argued strict bail conditions under Section 37 must be upheld to prevent potential evidence tampering or reoffense. Supreme Court Judgment A Vacation Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan granted bail, underscoring that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental. The Court observed the trial had not progressed for over two years, making continued detention unconstitutional despite the NDPS Act’s stringent bail provisions. The weakening of prosecution evidence further supported bail, balancing public interest with individual liberty. Conclusion This landmark ruling reinforces that even under stringent drug laws, constitutional protections like Article 21 prevail against undue trial delays. The Supreme Court’s decision in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh sets a vital precedent for safeguarding the right to personal liberty and speedy justice in narcotics cases. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Incarceration Due to Trial Delay Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Bar – Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Read More »

Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra Condemns Arrest of Sharmishta Panoli, Demands Immediate Release Over Social Media Controversy Supreme Court Petitioned After Alleged Police Assault on Journalists Reporting on Madhya Pradesh Sand Mafia Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Assam’s Deportation Policy on Bangladeshi Infiltration Supreme Court Orders Medical Care for Disabled Rape Survivor Under Victim Compensation Scheme LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF NUNIWAL LAW CHAMBERS Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Supreme Court Judgment on ED’s Arrest Powers Under PMLA: No Arrest After Special Court Cognizance | Tarsem Lal Case Analysis 2024 Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis REHA BHARGAV 04 June 2025 Explore the landmark Supreme Court judgment in the Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D.K. Gandhi case, clarifying that advocates are not liable for deficiency of services under the Consumer Protection Act. Understand the implications for legal accountability, police procedures, and fundamental rights in India. Introduction On May 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment in the case filed by the Bar of Indian Lawyers, led by President Jasbir Singh Makik (Note: no direct Wikipedia page, so linked to related), against D.K. Gandhi from the Police Station at the National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD). This case addressed important questions around police conduct, procedural fairness, and advocates’ liability under the Consumer Protection Act. Case Background: Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D.K. Gandhi The petition was filed due to alleged procedural lapses and possible human rights violations by police officials at the NICD police station. The Bar of Indian Lawyers challenged the police action, citing concerns over arbitrary conduct, misuse of power, and lack of transparency during enforcement activities related to public health and communicable disease control. Key Legal Issues Violation of Fundamental Rights The petitioner argued that the police violated constitutional protections, specifically the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Allegations of Arbitrary and Malicious Conduct Claims were made that police officials acted arbitrarily and maliciously without following due process or legal protocols. Need for Judicial Oversight and Accountability The petition emphasized the necessity for judicial intervention to ensure transparency and accountability in police conduct. Respondent’s Defense The police defended their actions as lawful and necessary for public safety, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural norms and regulations governing communicable diseases. They denied any misuse of power or arbitrary behavior, stating that all enforcement measures were justified and aimed at maintaining law and order. Supreme Court Judgment Summary After thorough consideration, the Court acknowledged the importance of protecting fundamental rights while recognizing the police’s duty to enforce laws relating to public health. The Court ruled that advocates are not liable under the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency of services, balancing the need for effective law enforcement with constitutional safeguards. The judgment highlights the essential role of judicial oversight in maintaining this balance. Conclusion: Impact and Implications This landmark ruling reinforces the principle that police powers must be exercised lawfully and transparently, particularly in sensitive areas like public health enforcement. It clarifies that advocates cannot be held liable for professional service deficiencies under consumer protection laws. The decision underscores the complementary nature of safeguarding individual rights and maintaining public safety through due process and accountability. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Read More »

Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra Condemns Arrest of Sharmishta Panoli, Demands Immediate Release Over Social Media Controversy Supreme Court Petitioned After Alleged Police Assault on Journalists Reporting on Madhya Pradesh Sand Mafia Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Assam’s Deportation Policy on Bangladeshi Infiltration Supreme Court Orders Medical Care for Disabled Rape Survivor Under Victim Compensation Scheme LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF NUNIWAL LAW CHAMBERS Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Supreme Court Judgment on ED’s Arrest Powers Under PMLA: No Arrest After Special Court Cognizance | Tarsem Lal Case Analysis 2024 Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s SC List Amendment: Tanti-Tantwa Merger Declared Unconstitutional Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka REHA BHARGAV 02 June 2025 The Supreme Court clarifies that the 30-day timeline to appeal a Juvenile Justice Board’s preliminary assessment order is directory, not mandatory. Read about this pivotal judgment in Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Karnataka (May 7, 2024), and its impact on juvenile justice in India. Introduction: A Landmark Judgment in Juvenile Justice Law The Supreme Court of India‘s ruling in Child in Conflict with Law through His Mother vs. State of Karnataka (May 7, 2024) marks a significant development in how Indian courts approach serious offenses involving minors. This case interprets the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, especially concerning the preliminary assessment process, appeal timelines, and trial jurisdiction. This ruling addresses whether the 30-day timeline to file an appeal against a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) preliminary assessment is mandatory or directory, and whether the Children’s Court or Juvenile Justice Board holds appropriate jurisdiction in such cases. Case Background and Key Facts In this case, a minor was accused of serious offenses, including sexual assault under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The Juvenile Justice Board initially ruled that the minor should be tried as an adult. However, this order was reversed in the absence of the Principal Magistrate. The child’s mother challenged the reversal, arguing for the original decision to stand—seeking a trial in the Children’s Court. The Karnataka High Court upheld her petition, prompting the State of Karnataka to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court. Legal Issues Considered by the Court Are Timelines Under the Juvenile Justice Act Mandatory or Directory? The Court examined Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which stipulates a three-month timeline for completing the preliminary assessment by the JJB. The key question: Is this timeline legally binding (mandatory), or is it advisory (directory)? Jurisdiction of Children’s Court vs Juvenile Justice Board The Court also assessed whether a trial can proceed in the Court of Sessions when a designated Children’s Court is not established. The interpretation of the Act’s terminology played a crucial role in resolving this jurisdictional issue. Supreme Court Judgment Summary In its May 7, 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court clarified: The 30-day appeal timeline under the Juvenile Justice Act is directory, not mandatory. This allows flexibility to accommodate the complexities of individual cases. Procedural deadlines should not override the substantive right to a fair trial, especially in juvenile cases. The terms Children’s Court and Court of Sessions are functionally interchangeable under the Act, ensuring that jurisdiction is not lost due to administrative designations. The Court affirmed the High Court’s direction to conduct the trial in the Children’s Court, emphasizing a child-friendly, rehabilitative approach rather than a strictly punitive one. Conclusion: A Balanced Approach to Juvenile Justice This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to balancing child rights with societal protection. By declaring the timeline for appeal as directory, the Court prevents procedural rigidity from hampering justice. It also highlights the importance of rehabilitative over punitive measures in juvenile justice. The case reinforces that procedural safeguards must align with the best interests of the child, ensuring that the legal system remains compassionate, equitable, and just. Case Details at a Glance Case Name: Child in Conflict with Law through His Mother vs. State of Karnataka Date of Judgment: May 7, 2024 Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 234; 2024 INSC 396 Presiding Judges: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal Relevant Laws: Juvenile Justice Act 2015, IPC, POCSO Act   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Sada Law • June 3, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Read More »

Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra Condemns Arrest of Sharmishta Panoli, Demands Immediate Release Over Social Media Controversy Supreme Court Petitioned After Alleged Police Assault on Journalists Reporting on Madhya Pradesh Sand Mafia Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Assam’s Deportation Policy on Bangladeshi Infiltration Supreme Court Orders Medical Care for Disabled Rape Survivor Under Victim Compensation Scheme LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF NUNIWAL LAW CHAMBERS Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Supreme Court Judgment on ED’s Arrest Powers Under PMLA: No Arrest After Special Court Cognizance | Tarsem Lal Case Analysis 2024 Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s SC List Amendment: Tanti-Tantwa Merger Declared Unconstitutional Supreme Court Strikes Down Arbitrary Bail Conditions Violating Privacy in Frank Vitus v. NCB (2024) Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 REHA BHARGAV 02 June 2025 In a landmark 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that financial compensation under CrPC Section 357 cannot substitute imprisonment for serious crimes. Learn about the case, its background, judgment, and implications for India’s criminal justice system. Introduction In a significant judgment delivered on May 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed a crucial principle in criminal law: monetary compensation to victims cannot replace custodial punishment, especially in serious offenses involving bodily harm. The case of Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya v. State of Gujarat has become a cornerstone in understanding the limits of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This ruling highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of criminal sentencing and reinforces that justice should not be influenced by an offender’s financial capacity. Case Background: What Happened? The Incident The case dates back to September 2012 when Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya filed an FIR in Surendranagar, Gujarat, alleging that he was assaulted by five individuals. The charges included: Rioting (Sections 147–149 of the Indian Penal Code) Voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt (Sections 323, 325 IPC) Extortion (Section 384 IPC) Criminal intimidation (Section 506(2) IPC) Violation of the Gujarat Police Act (Section 135) After trial, the Sessions Court convicted two accused, sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment and fines. Three others were acquitted. High Court Appeal The Gujarat High Court later reduced the sentence to four years and allowed the convicts to be released early upon payment of ₹2.5 lakh each as compensation to the victim. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, raising a critical question: Can financial compensation under CrPC Section 357 justify sentence reduction? Key Legal Issue Can Victim Compensation Replace Imprisonment? The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether voluntary payment of compensation to the victim under Section 357 CrPC could be a valid ground to reduce or substitute imprisonment. Arguments from Both Sides Petitioner (Rajendra Umraniya) Punishment and Compensation Serve Different Roles: Compensation is supplementary, not a replacement for legal sentencing. Threat to Justice and Deterrence: Allowing compensation to mitigate punishment creates bias for wealthier offenders, undermining justice. Misuse of Section 357 CrPC: The provision was intended to benefit victims, not help convicts escape prison time. Violation of Judicial Precedents: Prior Supreme Court rulings have emphasized that compensation cannot override the seriousness of the crime. Denial of Justice to the Victim: Reducing punishment weakens public confidence in the system and trivializes the harm caused. Respondents (Convicted Accused) Voluntary Compensation Shows Remorse: ₹5 lakh had already been paid to the victim, indicating sincere regret. High Court’s Discretion: The sentence balanced restorative justice and punishment. Time Elapsed Since Incident: Over 12 years had passed; the convicts remained law-abiding. Humanitarian Considerations: Good behavior, family responsibilities, and cooperation in the legal process were cited as reasons for leniency. Not Challenging Conviction: They accepted their guilt, only appealing the quantum of sentence. Supreme Court Judgment – May 9, 2024 Final Ruling The Supreme Court of India unequivocally held that: Compensation under CrPC Section 357 cannot substitute imprisonment, especially in serious criminal cases. Key takeaways: The Gujarat High Court’s reasoning was legally flawed. Allowing wealth to influence sentencing violates the principle of equality before law. Sentence must be based on the gravity of the crime, not the offender’s financial position. Compensation is an additional remedy, not a bargaining chip to reduce jail time. However, due to the long lapse of time and partial compensation already paid, the Court did not reinstate the original sentence. Instead, it ordered each convict to pay an additional ₹5 lakh, bringing the total compensation to ₹15 lakh for the victim. Conclusion: A Landmark in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence This landmark decision ensures that India’s criminal justice system remains fair and impartial. The Supreme Court of India clarified that: Criminal sentencing cannot be bought through monetary settlements. Victim compensation and punishment serve separate legal purposes. The economic status of an offender must never influence sentencing outcomes. By reinforcing the objectivity of the sentencing process under CrPC Section 357, the Court has protected the sanctity of justice and prevented misuse of compensatory provisions.             Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Sada Law • June 3, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on ED’s Arrest Powers Under PMLA: No Arrest After Special Court Cognizance | Tarsem Lal Case Analysis 2024 Supreme Court Judgment on ED’s Arrest Powers Under PMLA: No Arrest

Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote