sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

July 1, 2025

Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist in Official Secrets Act Case, Cites Press Freedom

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist in Official Secrets Act Case, Cites Press Freedom Supreme Court to Urgently Hear Petition on Same-Sex Couples’ Adoption Rights in India Madras High Court Allows Women to Join Temple Chariot Festival, Citing Equality and Religious Freedom Telangana High Court Cancels Free Land Allotment to IAMC Hyderabad in Landmark Ruling Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 for Defamatory Reporting During Operation Sindoor in Jammu & Kashmir Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Bombay High Court Halts Aarey Forest Demolition: Legal Win for Environment and Tribal Rights Delhi High Court Orders Centre to Draft Deepfake Guidelines: Major Step for Digital Privacy and Free Speech in India Supreme Court Clears Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code: A Historic Step Toward Gender Equality and Secular Law in India Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist in Official Secrets Act Case, Cites Press Freedom KASHISH JAHAN 1 JULY 2025 The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR against an investigative journalist under the Official Secrets Act, marking a major victory for press freedom and free speech in India. A Landmark Ruling for Press Freedom in India In a major win for democratic values and the rights of the media, the Delhi High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against an investigative journalist under the Official Secrets Act (OSA). The journalist had published leaked government documents related to sensitive defense procurements. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani: Publishing Public Interest Documents Is Not a Crime Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while hearing a joint plea by the journalist and a prominent media watchdog, stated that mere possession or publication of documents—if of public importance—does not violate the OSA. He emphasized that such actions are not criminal unless there is clear evidence of espionage or intent to harm national security. Background: FIR Filed After Journalist Exposed Defense Irregularities The FIR, originally filed in 2024, followed a series of investigative reports by the journalist that revealed alleged irregularities in defense procurement deals. These articles were based on internal files from the Ministry of Defence. While the government claimed the leaked documents posed a national security risk, several civil society organizations argued the exposé served the public interest. Reaffirming the Right to Free Speech and Journalistic Integrity The ruling is a significant reinforcement of the Supreme Court’s precedent in the landmark Vinod Dua judgment. The High Court emphasized that the right to report on matters of national relevance cannot be suppressed by the misuse of outdated secrecy laws like the OSA. Court Urges Clearer Guidelines for Press and National Security Balance The Court also directed the Central Government to establish clear, updated guidelines to ensure a fair balance between protecting national interests and respecting press freedom. Verdict Welcomed by Media Rights Groups The decision has been widely praised by media rights groups and legal experts as a reaffirmation that investigative journalism is not a threat to the state—it is a vital pillar of a transparent and democratic society. The verdict sends a strong message that journalism is not sedition or spying, but a safeguard of public accountability. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist in Official Secrets Act Case, Cites Press Freedom Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court to Urgently Hear Petition on Same-Sex Couples’ Adoption Rights in India Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Madras High Court Allows Women to Join Temple Chariot Festival, Citing Equality and Religious Freedom Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist in Official Secrets Act Case, Cites Press Freedom Read More »

Supreme Court to Urgently Hear Petition on Same-Sex Couples’ Adoption Rights in India

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court to Urgently Hear Petition on Same-Sex Couples’ Adoption Rights in India Madras High Court Allows Women to Join Temple Chariot Festival, Citing Equality and Religious Freedom Telangana High Court Cancels Free Land Allotment to IAMC Hyderabad in Landmark Ruling Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 for Defamatory Reporting During Operation Sindoor in Jammu & Kashmir Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Bombay High Court Halts Aarey Forest Demolition: Legal Win for Environment and Tribal Rights Delhi High Court Orders Centre to Draft Deepfake Guidelines: Major Step for Digital Privacy and Free Speech in India Supreme Court Clears Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code: A Historic Step Toward Gender Equality and Secular Law in India Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds Supreme Court to Urgently Hear Petition on Same-Sex Couples’ Adoption Rights in India KASHISH JAHAN 1 JULY 2025 The Supreme Court of India has agreed to urgently hear a pivotal case challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from adoption rights. This ruling could reshape India’s family law and LGBTQIA+ rights landscape. Supreme Court of India to Hear Petition on Same-Sex Adoption Rights In a significant move, the Supreme Court of India has agreed to urgently hear a new petition that challenges the denial of adoption rights to same-sex married couples. The petition calls into question the constitutional validity of India’s current family law framework, which excludes same-sex couples from legally adopting children. Petition Challenges Unequal Adoption Rights for LGBTQIA+ Couples Filed by a coalition of LGBTQIA+ rights activists and couples, the petition argues that despite the Court’s 2023 verdict recognizing civil unions for same-sex partners, the lack of adoption rights violates key constitutional protections—namely Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Highlights Constitutional Morality The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, acknowledged the seriousness of the matter, calling it one that involves “important questions of constitutional morality and equal protection of law.” The court has scheduled a detailed hearing for mid-July 2025. Ongoing Discrimination Despite Recognition of Same-Sex Unions Petitioners emphasize that although they can now register as civil partners, they still face systemic discrimination when attempting to adopt from government-run or private agencies. This disparity undermines the spirit of the Court’s previous landmark rulings, including the Navtej Singh Johar (2018) case, which decriminalized homosexuality, and the Supriyo Chakraborty (2023) case, which recognized same-sex civil unions. Centre Cites Traditional Family Values in Opposition In its preliminary affidavit, the Indian government referenced the Juvenile Justice Act and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, stating that these laws are based on “traditional family structures” that do not account for same-sex parenting. Potential Landmark in India’s LGBTQIA+ Civil Rights Journey If the Court rules in favor of the petitioners, it could significantly reshape India’s family law system and set a progressive precedent for the adoption rights of same-sex couples. This hearing could mark a historic milestone in the long-standing fight for equal civil rights for LGBTQIA+ individuals across the country. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court to Urgently Hear Petition on Same-Sex Couples’ Adoption Rights in India Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Madras High Court Allows Women to Join Temple Chariot Festival, Citing Equality and Religious Freedom Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Telangana High Court Cancels Free Land Allotment to IAMC Hyderabad in Landmark Ruling Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court to Urgently Hear Petition on Same-Sex Couples’ Adoption Rights in India Read More »

Madras High Court Allows Women to Join Temple Chariot Festival, Citing Equality and Religious Freedom

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Madras High Court Allows Women to Join Temple Chariot Festival, Citing Equality and Religious Freedom Telangana High Court Cancels Free Land Allotment to IAMC Hyderabad in Landmark Ruling Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 for Defamatory Reporting During Operation Sindoor in Jammu & Kashmir Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Bombay High Court Halts Aarey Forest Demolition: Legal Win for Environment and Tribal Rights Delhi High Court Orders Centre to Draft Deepfake Guidelines: Major Step for Digital Privacy and Free Speech in India Supreme Court Clears Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code: A Historic Step Toward Gender Equality and Secular Law in India Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe into ₹3,200 Crore Bihar Foodgrain Scam: Political Fallout and Fight Against Corruption Madras High Court Allows Women to Join Temple Chariot Festival, Citing Equality and Religious Freedom KASHISH JAHAN 1 JULY 2025 In a historic verdict, the Madras High Court affirms women’s constitutional right to participate in Tamil Nadu’s traditional temple chariot procession, striking down a discriminatory centuries-old ban. Historic Ruling by Madras High Court on Women’s Temple Entry In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court has upheld the right of women to participate in the annual temple chariot procession at a centuries-old temple in Tamil Nadu. This progressive ruling overturns a long-standing ban that prevented women from pulling the sacred chariot ropes during the festival. Legal Challenge Based on Constitutional Rights A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by a group of female devotees. They argued that the restriction violated their fundamental rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) of the Indian Constitution. The temple management, however, defended the ban as a “customary tradition” tied to ritual purity. Justice Anita Sumanth: Tradition Cannot Override the Constitution Delivering the verdict, Justice Anita Sumanth ruled that traditional customs cannot override the constitutionally protected rights of citizens. The Court emphasized that “constitutional morality must prevail over traditional patriarchy,” reinforcing the supremacy of gender equality and individual religious freedom. Inspiration from the Supreme Court’s Sabarimala Verdict The ruling draws parallels with the groundbreaking Sabarimala verdict by the Supreme Court of India, which allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Like that case, this decision marks a significant step forward in breaking gender barriers in religious practices. Support from Gender Rights Activists and Devotees The judgment has been celebrated by gender rights groups and devotees across the country. Advocates hailed it as a powerful move against outdated and discriminatory religious norms that restrict women’s participation in sacred rituals and festivals. Temple Authorities Ordered to Facilitate Women’s Participation In closing, the Court directed temple authorities to ensure the smooth and safe inclusion of women in this year’s temple festival, scheduled to begin next week. This ensures immediate enforcement of the ruling and sets a strong precedent for inclusive temple practices across India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Madras High Court Allows Women to Join Temple Chariot Festival, Citing Equality and Religious Freedom Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Telangana High Court Cancels Free Land Allotment to IAMC Hyderabad in Landmark Ruling Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 for Defamatory Reporting During Operation Sindoor in Jammu & Kashmir Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Madras High Court Allows Women to Join Temple Chariot Festival, Citing Equality and Religious Freedom Read More »

Telangana High Court Cancels Free Land Allotment to IAMC Hyderabad in Landmark Ruling

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Telangana High Court Cancels Free Land Allotment to IAMC Hyderabad in Landmark Ruling Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 for Defamatory Reporting During Operation Sindoor in Jammu & Kashmir Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Bombay High Court Halts Aarey Forest Demolition: Legal Win for Environment and Tribal Rights Delhi High Court Orders Centre to Draft Deepfake Guidelines: Major Step for Digital Privacy and Free Speech in India Supreme Court Clears Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code: A Historic Step Toward Gender Equality and Secular Law in India Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe into ₹3,200 Crore Bihar Foodgrain Scam: Political Fallout and Fight Against Corruption INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INTERVENOR LEGAL SOLUTIONS, NEW DELHI Telangana High Court Cancels Free Land Allotment to IAMC Hyderabad in Landmark Ruling PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 1 JULY 2025 In a landmark ruling, the Telangana High Court cancelled the free land allotment to IAMC Hyderabad, citing legal violations and procedural lapses. Learn more about this precedent-setting case involving land law, PILs, and state accountability. Land Allotment to IAMC Declared Legally Invalid In a pivotal judgment, the Telangana High Court has revoked the allocation of 3.7 acres of prime land in Raidurg, Hyderabad, previously granted to the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC). The court ruled the government’s decision—issued via a government order in December 2021—as legally untenable and made without proper procedure. The land, valued at approximately ₹350 crore, was handed over free of cost, triggering a legal challenge and a public interest litigation (PIL) questioning the legality of the grant. Public Interest Litigation Challenges Land Grant The case was initiated by lawyer Koti Raghuntha Rao through a PIL. He argued that IAMC, as a private trust, was ineligible to receive land without compensation under the provisions of the Telangana Urban Areas Act, 1975. The bench, comprising Justices K. Lakshman and K. Sujana, agreed with the petitioner. They highlighted that the land allocation bypassed key requirements, including cabinet approval and standard due diligence procedures. The justices emphasized, “Noble intentions cannot override statutory mandates.” Court Emphasizes Legal Procedure Over Discretion Despite IAMC’s influential supporters, including former Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, the court concluded that the organization remains a private entity. It ruled that such trusts are not entitled to free land from the state. The judges cautioned that discretionary powers of the state must be exercised transparently and within the bounds of law—especially in the allocation of public resources like land. Government Order No. 126 Nullified The court officially revoked Government Order No. 126, nullifying the land allotment. However, it clarified that the IAMC’s role as a neutral body for dispute resolution would remain unaffected by this decision. IAMC trustee and former Supreme Court judge B. Sudarshan Reddy responded that IAMC would appeal the verdict in the apex court. A Win for Transparency and Rule of Law This judgment sets a powerful precedent in land governance and public accountability. It reinforces that even well-intentioned governmental actions must comply with the law, and discretionary authority should not bypass legal frameworks. By addressing procedural lapses and prioritizing legality, the Telangana High Court has sent a strong message in support of fairness, transparency, and responsible land allocation. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Telangana High Court Cancels Free Land Allotment to IAMC Hyderabad in Landmark Ruling Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 for Defamatory Reporting During Operation Sindoor in Jammu & Kashmir Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Telangana High Court Cancels Free Land Allotment to IAMC Hyderabad in Landmark Ruling Read More »

Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 for Defamatory Reporting During Operation Sindoor in Jammu & Kashmir

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 for Defamatory Reporting During Operation Sindoor in Jammu & Kashmir Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Bombay High Court Halts Aarey Forest Demolition: Legal Win for Environment and Tribal Rights Delhi High Court Orders Centre to Draft Deepfake Guidelines: Major Step for Digital Privacy and Free Speech in India Supreme Court Clears Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code: A Historic Step Toward Gender Equality and Secular Law in India Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe into ₹3,200 Crore Bihar Foodgrain Scam: Political Fallout and Fight Against Corruption INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INTERVENOR LEGAL SOLUTIONS, NEW DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT HEMVATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY, UTTARAKHAND Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 for Defamatory Reporting During Operation Sindoor in Jammu & Kashmir PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 1 JULY 2025 A district court in Jammu & Kashmir orders an FIR against Zed News and News18 over false reporting during Operation Sindoor. This landmark ruling reinforces media accountability and the legal consequences of spreading misinformation. J&K Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 Over Defamatory Coverage During Operation Sindoor In a crucial step toward enhancing media responsibility, a district court in Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir, has directed law enforcement to file a formal complaint against national news networks Zed News and News18. The order follows allegations of broadcasting defamatory and false information during India’s anti-terror operation, known as Operation Sindoor. False Identification Sparks Outrage The controversy erupted when both networks incorrectly reported that Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Qari Mohammad Iqbal was killed by the Indian Army in a cross-border encounter. In reality, Iqbal was a civilian school teacher from Poonch. The misreporting caused significant distress to his family and incited widespread public outrage, particularly on social media platforms. Legal Action Initiated Under IT and Criminal Laws According to advocate Sheikh Mohammad Saleem, the misrepresentation not only harmed the deceased’s reputation but also created confusion and unrest. Despite public apologies from the news outlets, the court deemed it necessary to pursue legal proceedings. The case has been filed under: Section 66 of the Information Technology Act Section 353(2) (public mischief) Section 356 (defamation) Section 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Impact of Misreporting Amid Cross-Border Tensions The court emphasized the potential social and political impact of such grave journalistic errors during a time of heightened cross-border tensions. It stated that “post-facto apologies or noble intentions cannot avoid legal scrutiny or make up for reputational harm.” Media Ethics Under the Spotlight This legal development has intensified scrutiny of media ethics during sensitive military operations. Fact-checkers and independent analysts have repeatedly criticized several outlets for circulating unverified or misleading information during Operation Sindoor. A Wake-Up Call for Responsible Journalism The FIR against Zed News and News18 marks a significant move toward holding media houses accountable. The court’s action serves as a stern reminder that journalistic freedom must be exercised responsibly—especially in regions vulnerable to conflict. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 for Defamatory Reporting During Operation Sindoor in Jammu & Kashmir Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Court Orders FIR Against Zed News and News18 for Defamatory Reporting During Operation Sindoor in Jammu & Kashmir Read More »

Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Bombay High Court Halts Aarey Forest Demolition: Legal Win for Environment and Tribal Rights Delhi High Court Orders Centre to Draft Deepfake Guidelines: Major Step for Digital Privacy and Free Speech in India Supreme Court Clears Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code: A Historic Step Toward Gender Equality and Secular Law in India Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe into ₹3,200 Crore Bihar Foodgrain Scam: Political Fallout and Fight Against Corruption INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INTERVENOR LEGAL SOLUTIONS, NEW DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT HEMVATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY, UTTARAKHAND LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT HEAD DIGITAL WORKS, DELHI Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 1 JULY 2025 A landmark ruling by the Delhi High Court clarifies that an arbitration clause does not automatically override civil court jurisdiction. Learn how Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 plays a critical role. Delhi High Court Affirms Civil Court Authority Despite Arbitration Clauses On June 27, 2025, the Delhi High Court issued a significant judgment emphasizing that the presence of an arbitration clause in a contract does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of civil courts. This ruling reinforces the necessity of following proper legal procedures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Background of the Case: Civil Suit vs Arbitration Clause The plaintiff filed a civil suit to recover ₹35 lakh based on a loan agreement backed by a pledge of shares. The matter was presided over by Justice Ravinder Dudeja. Although the agreement included an arbitration clause, the defendant did not file a proper application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Instead, the defendant moved for dismissal under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), arguing that the arbitration clause barred civil court jurisdiction. Court’s Ruling: Arbitration Must Be Actively Invoked The Court rejected the defendant’s argument, stating that Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC applies only when a suit appears to be expressly barred by law. Crucially, Section 8 of the Arbitration Act must be specifically invoked for this bar to be considered. Without such a motion, the civil court retains the authority to hear the case. Kompetenz-Kompetenz Principle: Explained In its analysis, the Court referenced the kompetenz-kompetenz doctrine, a principle that allows arbitral tribunals to decide their own jurisdiction—but only if the court formally refers the matter to arbitration through a Section 8 application. This reinforces the idea that civil courts maintain jurisdiction unless arbitration is actively and properly sought. Importance of Due Process and Judicial Oversight The ruling cited earlier judgments by the Supreme Court of India, affirming that due process must be followed before diverting any civil matter to arbitration. Civil suits cannot be dismissed solely because an arbitration clause exists; a formal Section 8 request is essential. Key Takeaway: Arbitration Clauses Do Not Automatically Nullify Civil Suits This decision ensures that parties cannot prematurely evade civil proceedings merely by pointing to an arbitration clause. It upholds judicial clarity by balancing arbitration law, civil procedure, and access to justice. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Halts Aarey Forest Demolition: Legal Win for Environment and Tribal Rights Sada Law • June 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Delhi High Court Rules Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Automatically Override Civil Court Jurisdiction Read More »

Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Bombay High Court Halts Aarey Forest Demolition: Legal Win for Environment and Tribal Rights Delhi High Court Orders Centre to Draft Deepfake Guidelines: Major Step for Digital Privacy and Free Speech in India Supreme Court Clears Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code: A Historic Step Toward Gender Equality and Secular Law in India Supreme Court Reviews CAA Rules 2024: Fresh Petitions Challenge Citizenship Law on Constitutional Grounds Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe into ₹3,200 Crore Bihar Foodgrain Scam: Political Fallout and Fight Against Corruption INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INTERVENOR LEGAL SOLUTIONS, NEW DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT HEMVATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY, UTTARAKHAND LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT HEAD DIGITAL WORKS, DELHI INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT VOYAGER CAPITAL Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 1 JULY 2025 The Supreme Court of India affirms that the right to shut down a business is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Learn how this landmark judgment impacts business owners, labor laws, and public interest. Supreme Court Declares Business Closure a Fundamental Right Under Article 19 In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the right to close a business is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The judgment, delivered on June 4, 2025, underscores that the freedom to practice any profession includes the right to shut down operations, subject to reasonable restrictions. This critical verdict was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. Case Background: Harinagar Sugar Mills and the Closure of Its Mumbai Unit The case stemmed from a petition by Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division), which sought to shut down its Mumbai facility after losing a vital processing contract with Britannia Industries. The company filed a closure application on August 28, 2019, under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Despite the statutory requirement for a decision within 60 days, the Maharashtra Labour Department, particularly a Deputy Secretary, delayed the process by either not acting or asking unauthorized questions. Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Presumed Permission The Court ruled that failure by the State to respond within the 60-day period amounts to presumed permission for business closure. It emphasized that the Deputy Secretary’s actions lacked legal backing, as there was no delegation under Section 39 of the Act authorizing such inquiries. This interpretation ensures clarity and accountability in labor law, making it clear that bureaucratic delays cannot hinder legitimate business decisions. Legitimate Grounds and Public Interest Must Be Considered While upholding the right to close a business, the Supreme Court clarified that financial difficulty alone is insufficient. Business owners must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or inability to continue operations. Moreover, public interest considerations under Section 25-O must be taken into account before final closure is approved. Bombay High Court Overruled: Supreme Court Upholds Lawful Closure In this ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a previous decision by the Bombay High Court, which had ruled against the company citing procedural deficiencies. The apex court concluded that the closure was lawful after the statutory deadline had passed. Additionally, the business compensated 178 employees, with the court ordering ₹15 crore to be disbursed within eight weeks, reflecting its commitment to employee welfare alongside corporate rights. Balancing Constitutional Rights with Accountability This judgment reinforces that Article 19(1)(g) not only safeguards the right to practice a profession but also the right to cease business operations. However, this right must be exercised responsibly, ensuring transparency, legal compliance, and respect for the interests of employees and the public. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Sada Law • July 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Halts Aarey Forest Demolition: Legal Win for Environment and Tribal Rights Sada Law • June 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Orders Centre to Draft Deepfake Guidelines: Major Step for Digital Privacy and Free Speech in India Sada Law • June 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Affirms Right to Close Business Under Article 19 of Indian Constitution Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote