Sada Law

S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023)

Trending Today S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Krishna Murari 5 July 2023 Introduction In this significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) is maintainable after the withdrawal of the first one without liberty to file afresh. The Court referred the matter to a Larger Bench to settle the conflicting views that have arisen in previous judgments. Background and Facts The dispute involved a civil property matter where the petitioner initially filed an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order. However, the first SLP was withdrawn without any liberty granted to file afresh. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second SLP on the same cause of action. The respondent opposed its maintainability, contending that such a practice would amount to abuse of process. Issue Whether the withdrawal of an earlier SLP without liberty bars the filing of a second SLP on the same cause of action? Arguments Petitioner’s Arguments The withdrawal of the first SLP does not amount to res judicata. Since the earlier SLP was not adjudicated on merits, the petitioner retains the right to file another SLP. Dismissing the second SLP without hearing would curtail the fundamental right to access justice. Respondent’s Arguments A second SLP on the same issue is not maintainable once the first has been withdrawn. Such repeated filings would lead to forum shopping and delay in finality of litigation. Past judgments have stressed that withdrawal without liberty bars a fresh petition. Judgment The Supreme Court, noting conflicting precedents on the subject, referred the issue to a Larger Bench. It observed: The maintainability of a second SLP after withdrawal of the first without liberty requires authoritative clarification. Earlier rulings have taken divergent views, making judicial consistency necessary. Till such clarification, scrutiny of similar cases should be cautious to avoid abuse of process. Conclusion This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s concern over repeated litigation and abuse of process in SLP filings. By referring the matter to a Larger Bench, the Court aims to ensure uniformity in law on the maintainability of second SLPs, striking a balance between access to justice and the need for finality in litigation. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Read More »

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony Justice Sanjiv Khanna & Justice Bela M. Trivedi 13 July 2023 Introduction This appeal arose from the conviction of Ranjeet Singh under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of Devnath/Deonath on 15 January 2010 in Madanpur forest, Chhattisgarh. The Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment, and the Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinized the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence, especially the delayed testimonies of minor eyewitnesses, and set aside the conviction. Facts of the Case Incident (15 January 2010): Devnath went to the forest to collect firewood. Later, his son Vikas Kumar (PW-1) found him dead with head injuries near a blood-stained stone. FIR Registration: The FIR was lodged the same day by Vikas Kumar. It did not name any accused or mention eyewitnesses—only that “someone” killed the deceased. Investigation: Ranjeet Singh, the appellant, accompanied PW-1 and PW-2 to lodge the FIR. Later, it was alleged he absconded after a sniffer dog traced the blood-stained stone to his house. Eyewitness Statements: Nine days later, three minor girls—Anita (PW-13), Meena (PW-14), and Lali (PW-15)—claimed to have seen the murder. However, their testimony was doubted because of: Close family ties with other key witnesses, Their initial silence, and Contradictory accounts about whether they were even in the forest that day. Motive: The prosecution cited minor quarrels 2–3 months before the incident as the motive. Issue Whether the conviction of Ranjeet Singh under Section 302 IPC was sustainable given: The absence of direct evidence in the FIR, The delayed and doubtful testimonies of alleged eyewitnesses, Weak proof of motive, and Inconsistent claims of abscondence. Judgment Unreliable Eyewitnesses: The Court rejected the testimony of the three minors, finding their accounts doubtful due to delay, family influence, and contradictions. Defective FIR: The FIR did not name any accused or mention eyewitnesses, weakening the prosecution’s case. Weak Motive & Abscondence: Minor quarrels months before were insufficient to establish motive. The alleged abscondence was inconsistent and unproven. Failure of Prosecution: The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction based on circumstantial and doubtful evidence was unsustainable. Final Order: The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and life sentence, acquitting Ranjeet Singh. He was ordered to be released immediately unless required in another case. Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that conviction must rest on clear, consistent, and credible evidence. Mere suspicion, delayed testimonies, or weak circumstantial proof cannot justify upholding a conviction under Section 302 IPC. The judgment highlights the Court’s cautious approach in safeguarding the rights of the accused where prosecution evidence is unreliable. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Read More »

Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Ankita Bhati , Dev Raj Singh Bhati 13 July 2023 Introduction This case deals with the transfer of matrimonial and connected criminal proceedings on the ground of the wife’s convenience. The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principle that in matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience must be given paramount importance while deciding transfer petitions under Section 25 of the CPC. Facts The petitioner–wife sought transfer of two matrimonial cases filed by the husband from Noida (U.P.) to Solan (Himachal Pradesh), where she was residing. She contended that attending proceedings at Noida would cause undue hardship. Issue Whether matrimonial and connected criminal proceedings should be transferred to the place of residence of the wife, applying the principle of “wife’s convenience” in transfer petitions. Held The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petitions, directing that the matrimonial and criminal cases pending at Noida be transferred to the competent court at Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Key Takeaways In matrimonial disputes, wife’s convenience is a paramount consideration for transfer of cases. The Court reiterated its settled position that forcing a wife to travel long distances to contest cases causes hardship and is contrary to the interests of justice. Transfer of connected criminal proceedings ensures effective adjudication and avoids multiplicity of litigation. Conclusion The judgment reinforces the protective approach of the Supreme Court in matrimonial matters by prioritizing the wife’s convenience while deciding transfer petitions. It ensures that women are not burdened with unnecessary hardship in pursuing legal remedies, while also promoting judicial efficiency by consolidating related proceedings before one court. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Read More »

Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Justice M. M. Sundresh, Justice A. S. Bopanna 12 July 2023 Introduction The Supreme Court in Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh set aside a conviction under Sections 8(b) and 15(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The Court held that non-compliance with Section 52A (procedure for inventory, certification, and disposal of seized narcotics) is fatal to the prosecution’s case. Facts of the Case Mangilal was accused of possessing 98 kg of poppy husk. The trial court convicted him under Sections 8(b) & 15(c), sentencing him to 10 years RI + fine. The conviction was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Before the Supreme Court, Mangilal argued that mandatory safeguards under Section 52A were not followed. Issues Whether non-compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act vitiates the conviction? Can reliance solely on oral testimony of police officials sustain conviction without certified inventory/chain of custody? Did the lower courts err in upholding conviction despite serious procedural lapses? Petitioner’s Arguments No compliance with Section 52A (no Magistrate certification, no proper inventory, no valid samples). Conviction rested only on police testimony, with no independent corroboration. This violates the fair trial guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution. Respondent’s Arguments Contraband was lawfully seized and recovery was proved. Minor procedural lapses should not override substantive proof. Police testimony is credible and sufficient in narcotics cases. Judgment The Supreme Court acquitted Mangilal, holding that: Section 52A is mandatory; failure to comply renders the case unsustainable. No Magistrate’s certification, no inventory, and non-production of seized material fatally undermined the prosecution. Sole reliance on police testimony is insufficient in serious penal cases. Conclusion The Court reaffirmed that procedural safeguards under NDPS Act are not optional. Strict compliance with Section 52A is necessary to ensure fairness and protect against misuse. Since the prosecution failed to establish integrity of the seized narcotics, Mangilal’s conviction was set aside. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Read More »

The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes.

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Bound to Maintain Wife for Life: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Maintenance Order Against 86-Year-Old Paralysed Veteran Supreme Court of India Allows Death Penalty Challenge Through Article 32 Petitions Telangana High Court Rejects Wife’s ₹90 Lakh Alimony Plea, Dismisses Impotency Claim LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LEXCLAIM ADVOCATES, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT UMBRELLA LEGAL, MUMBAI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT THE OFFICE OF NITIN GOEL, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KOHLI AND KOHLI LAW ASSOCIATES, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT POOVAYYA & CO., BENGALURU & DELHI A New Era of Political Renewal: Young Democrats Challenge the Old Guard THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER v. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Bela M. Trivedi 04 July 2023 Introduction The case The Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs and Another v. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. (2023) concerned the interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The key issue was whether extended limitation and penalties could be invoked in cases where an assessee followed a bona fide classification or valuation method that was later found to be incorrect. Reliance Industries was accused of suppressing facts and misclassifying goods to evade excise duty, while Reliance argued that its actions were guided by prevailing judicial interpretation at the time. Facts of the Case Reliance Industries was alleged to have misclassified/undervalued goods by not including duty benefits received through transfer of advance licenses from its customers. The Excise Department issued a Show Cause Notice on 28.09.2005, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) proviso of the Central Excise Act. Reliance argued that it followed the view taken by the CESTAT in IFGL Refractories Ltd. (2001), which held that such duty benefits were not part of assessable value. That view was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2005. The Commissioner confirmed the demand (2006), but the CESTAT allowed Reliance’s appeal (2009), holding there was no suppression and the dispute was revenue-neutral. The Revenue challenged this order before the Supreme Court. Issue of the Case Whether Reliance Industries could be subjected to the extended limitation period and penalties under Section 11A on grounds of alleged suppression of facts, despite acting on a bona fide interpretation supported by CESTAT’s then-prevailing decision? Petitioner’s (Revenue) Arguments Reliance deliberately misclassified goods, causing revenue loss. Suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty justified extended limitation under Section 11A(4). Reliance’s reliance on the CESTAT ruling in IFGL Refractories could not absolve liability once the Supreme Court overturned it. Self-assessment required strict compliance; misstatement or omission, even if based on contrary interpretation, amounts to suppression. Respondent’s (Reliance Industries) Arguments Classification/valuation was based on a bona fide interpretation of law supported by the CESTAT’s binding decision at the relevant time. All relevant information was disclosed in statutory returns; there was no fraud, suppression, or intent to evade. The dispute was revenue-neutral, as customers could claim CENVAT credit. A mere difference of opinion on interpretation cannot justify invoking the extended limitation period. Judgment (Supreme Court, 04 July 2023) The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and upheld the CESTAT order in favor of Reliance. Held that no deliberate suppression, fraud, or misstatement was proved against Reliance. Reliance acted on a bona fide belief based on the CESTAT ruling in IFGL Refractories (2001), which held the field until reversed in 2005. Extended limitation under Section 11A(1) proviso requires deliberate intent to evade duty, not mere adoption of an interpretation later found incorrect. The absence of a specific disclosure requirement for deemed exports in ER-1 returns also meant there was no suppression. Appeals were dismissed as time-barred, and no penalties were applicable. Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed that extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law cannot be invoked in genuine classification or valuation disputes where the assessee acts on a bona fide interpretation supported by judicial precedent. Mere disagreement or later change in legal interpretation does not amount to suppression or fraud. The decision safeguards taxpayers against arbitrary penalties in cases involving genuine interpretative disputes. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Read More »

Kerala High Court Forms Committee to Strengthen Judicial Administration in Lakshadweep

Leave a Comment / Live cases, Uncategorized / Sada Law

Trending Today Kerala High Court Forms Committee to Strengthen Judicial Administration in Lakshadweep Madhya Pradesh Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma Withdraws Resignation After Harassment Allegations Presidential Reference on Governor’s Timelines: Supreme Court Hearing Day 3 Pune Court Summons Makers of Jolly LLB 3 Over Alleged Insult to Legal Profession Calcutta High Court Seeks State’s Response on Stray Dog Sterilisation Plea LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FINJURIS LLP INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SEMITA LEGAL, ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, NOIDA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW CHAMBERS OF PURTI GUPTA, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ARMS LEGAL AND ASSOCIATES, KOLKATA LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KABI AND ASSOCIATES, DELHI Kerala High Court Forms Committee to Strengthen Judicial Administration in Lakshadweep Prabhat Kumar Biltoria 02 June 2025 The Kerala High Court has formed a special committee to improve judicial infrastructure and access to justice in Lakshadweep, ensuring better technology-driven solutions for remote islands. Introduction On 21 August 2025, the Kerala High Court ordered the constitution of a Judicial Administration and Infrastructure Committee for Lakshadweep. This move addresses long-standing challenges in judicial accessibility, poor infrastructure, and limited staffing in the island territory. The decision was issued by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Ziyad Rahman AA, while hearing a suo motu matter highlighting systemic gaps in the delivery of justice across the islands. Composition of the Committee The newly formed committee will include members from judicial, administrative, law enforcement, and technological sectors. The directive ensures a multi-stakeholder approach for effective judicial reforms. Members of the Committee: Registrar General of the Kerala High Court Principal District Judge of Lakshadweep District Collector of Lakshadweep A nominee of the Lakshadweep Administrator Superintendent of Police Superintendent Engineer Registrar of Computerisation Representative from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) This broad-based composition ensures coordination between judiciary, administration, and technology for stronger judicial delivery. Judicial Challenges in Lakshadweep The suo motu case stemmed from issues of poor judicial facilities in Lakshadweep, further highlighted by a tragic suicide case. Major Concerns Identified: Out of 10 populated islands, only three have functioning courts. Lack of judicial presence denies access to justice for residents of seven islands. Low staff strength and inadequate infrastructure cause delays in case resolution. Residents are often forced to travel across treacherous seas to attend court hearings, undermining timely justice. Court’s Approach: Bridging the Gap in Justice The Division Bench emphasized that the right to justice is a constitutional right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar stated: “We have issued various orders, but the main order today is the constitution of this Committee.” The Court acknowledged that while interim measures had been taken in the past, systemic reforms were lacking. The new committee combines judicial and executive participation for practical implementation. Role of Technology: NIC’s Inclusion The inclusion of the National Informatics Centre (NIC) signals the Court’s focus on digital justice. Possible Reforms Under Consideration: Virtual court hearings to reduce travel burdens. Online e-filing and digital forms for litigants. Expansion of internet and video conferencing infrastructure. Strengthening e-courts initiatives in line with India’s digital judicial system. Wider Impact on Remote Territories The Kerala High Court’s move extends beyond Lakshadweep. It sets an important precedent for remote and tribal regions in India where judicial services are hard to access. Expected benefits include: Increased court presence across more islands. Reduced case backlog through better staffing and infrastructure. Stronger coordination between judiciary and administration. Sustainable, technology-driven solutions tailored for island ecosystems. Next Steps The Court has issued verbal directives and is expected to release a formal written order soon. The order will define: The committee’s mandate. Its reporting mechanism to the High Court. Periodic updates on judicial reforms in Lakshadweep. Conclusion The Kerala High Court’s proactive step demonstrates its commitment to ensuring equal access to justice in even the most remote regions of India. For the people of Lakshadweep, this marks the beginning of a technology-enabled, accessible, and efficient judicial system. By overcoming geographical barriers with institutional and digital reforms, the judiciary reinforces that justice must reach every citizen, whether on the mainland or in distant coastal islands. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Kerala High Court Forms Committee to Strengthen Judicial Administration in Lakshadweep Read More »

Madhya Pradesh Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma Withdraws Resignation After Harassment Allegations

Leave a Comment / Live cases, Uncategorized / Sada Law

Trending Today Madhya Pradesh Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma Withdraws Resignation After Harassment Allegations Presidential Reference on Governor’s Timelines: Supreme Court Hearing Day 3 Pune Court Summons Makers of Jolly LLB 3 Over Alleged Insult to Legal Profession Calcutta High Court Seeks State’s Response on Stray Dog Sterilisation Plea LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FINJURIS LLP INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SEMITA LEGAL, ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, NOIDA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW CHAMBERS OF PURTI GUPTA, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ARMS LEGAL AND ASSOCIATES, KOLKATA LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KABI AND ASSOCIATES, DELHI India Temporarily Removes Cotton Import Duty to Support Textile Sector Madhya Pradesh Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma Withdraws Resignation After Harassment Allegations Prabhat Kumar Biltoria 02 June 2025 Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma withdraws her resignation after alleging harassment by District Judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Case sparks debate on judicial accountability, collegium system, and whistleblower protection in India. Introduction In a case that highlights the intersection of personal grievance and institutional accountability, Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge (Junior Division) Aditi Kumar Sharma has withdrawn her resignation from judicial service. Sharma had earlier accused District Judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta of harassment and protested his elevation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Her decision to resume office came after an internal two-member High Court committee assured her that her grievances would be addressed fairly and in accordance with the law. Protest Resignation On July 30, 2025, Gupta was sworn in as a judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, despite multiple complaints against him. In protest, Sharma submitted her resignation letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court, writing: “I resign my judicial office not out of a loss of faith in justice, but out of a loss of justice in the very institution…” Her resignation was seen not as a routine departure but as a symbolic protest against the promotion of a judicial officer facing misconduct allegations. Allegations Against Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta Sharma was not alone. At least two other judicial officers had filed similar complaints against Gupta, citing improper conduct. However, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his elevation in early July 2025. On July 28, 2025, the Union Government cleared the recommendation. On July 30, 2025, Gupta officially took oath as a High Court judge. These developments deepened Sharma’s protest, ultimately leading to her resignation. Institutional Response Formation of an Internal Committee Following Sharma’s resignation, the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court constituted a two-member internal committee on August 11, 2025, tasked with reviewing her complaints. The committee assured Sharma that: She would not face institutional alienation. She could pursue redressal through administrative or judicial means. Her dignity and concerns would be fully protected. Reinstatement On the basis of these assurances, Sharma withdrew her resignation and was reinstated as Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Shahdol on August 20, 2025. Larger Implications Judicial Accountability and the Collegium System This case raises pressing questions: Should judges facing unresolved complaints be considered for elevation? Does the collegium system ensure transparency and accountability? The Collegium’s recommendation, despite formal objections, has reignited the debate about whether internal judicial processes are robust enough to assess a judge’s character and fitness. Protection for Judicial Whistleblowers Sharma’s protest resignation underscores the need for stronger whistleblower protection within the judiciary. Without proper safeguards, judicial officers who raise concerns risk institutional isolation. Symbolic Impact Her act of protest — followed by reinstatement — serves as a reminder that judicial accountability cannot be compromised in the name of seniority or expediency. It emphasizes the urgent need for a transparent internal grievance redressal mechanism. Conclusion The case of Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma illustrates the delicate balance between individual grievances and institutional credibility. While Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta continues in his elevated position, the controversy surrounding his promotion has amplified calls for reform in the judicial appointment system. The core question remains: Can the Indian judiciary strengthen its internal auditing mechanisms to prevent future crises of confidence? Sharma’s stand — both her resignation and withdrawal — may serve as a catalyst for change, urging the judiciary to prioritize fairness, transparency, and accountability. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Madhya Pradesh Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma Withdraws Resignation After Harassment Allegations Read More »

Presidential Reference on Governor’s Timelines: Supreme Court Hearing Day 3

Leave a Comment / Live cases, Uncategorized / Sada Law

Trending Today Presidential Reference on Governor’s Timelines: Supreme Court Hearing Day 3 Pune Court Summons Makers of Jolly LLB 3 Over Alleged Insult to Legal Profession Calcutta High Court Seeks State’s Response on Stray Dog Sterilisation Plea LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FINJURIS LLP INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SEMITA LEGAL, ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, NOIDA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW CHAMBERS OF PURTI GUPTA, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ARMS LEGAL AND ASSOCIATES, KOLKATA LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KABI AND ASSOCIATES, DELHI India Temporarily Removes Cotton Import Duty to Support Textile Sector India–China Border Rapprochement Signals Strategic Shift Amid U.S. Tensions Presidential Reference on Governor’s Timelines: Supreme Court Hearing Day 3 Prabhat Kumar Biltoria 02 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India continues its Presidential Reference hearing on whether Governors and the President of India can face judicially imposed timelines for decisions on State Bills. Introduction On Day 3 of the Presidential Reference hearing, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India examined whether the President and Governors can be placed under judicially determined timelines for decisions on State Bills. The five-judge Bench was headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar. The Court heard detailed arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocates representing Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Continuing his submissions, SG Tushar Mehta opposed judicially setting deadlines for constitutional authorities. He argued: No timelines in the Constitution: Where the Constitution is silent, courts cannot impose artificial deadlines. Exceptions to aid and advice: Cited Articles 200, 356, and 174, as well as the Nabam Rebia judgment, where Governors may act with limited discretion. Case of Shamsher Singh (1974): Governors must not act as a parallel government. Political mechanisms exist: Disputes can be addressed through appeals to the Prime Minister of India, President, or political processes rather than judicial intervention. Mehta warned that allowing courts to fix such timelines would amount to judicial overreach. Bench Pushes Back on Indefinite Inaction The Bench, however, raised concerns over Governors potentially stalling Bills for years without action. Justice PS Narasimha: “Okay, we cannot specify a time limit, but a process needs to be worked out… how long can that be a dead end?” CJI BR Gavai: “If a constitutional functionary does not discharge functions without valid reasons, should the Court say we are powerless?” Justice Surya Kant: “What if Bills are pending for four years? Then what happens to the will of a two-thirds majority?” The judges suggested that absolute judicial restraint might undermine the functioning of State legislatures. Political Remedies vs. Judicial Remedies Mehta maintained that hard cases should not lead courts to create timelines, emphasizing that solutions lie in: Constitutional amendments Parliament processes Civic and political action However, the CJI countered: “Hard cases make good law.” He questioned the absence of safeguards when Governors delay Bills indefinitely. Mehta referenced Justice JS Verma, who cautioned against judicial encroachment into executive and legislative functions, arguing that failures should be corrected through democracy, not courts. Presidential Questions Discussed The Bench also briefly addressed some of the 14 questions referred by the President under Article 143: Question 8: Whether the President must seek the Court’s advice whenever a Governor reserves a Bill. CJI Gavai noted this would overburden the Court with advisory roles. Union–State disputes under Article 131: The CJI said such suits have proven ineffective in practice. Kapil Sibal’s observation: Senior advocate Kapil Sibal suggested broadening the scope of the reference beyond the core issue. Next Hearing The case will continue on Tuesday, August 26, 2025. Arguments are expected to focus on maintainability of the reference and the scope of judicial review over gubernatorial inaction. Conclusion The Presidential Reference on Governor’s timelines raises a constitutional dilemma — balancing judicial restraint with preventing executive inaction. The Supreme Court’s ruling could set a landmark precedent, defining the boundaries of judicial review, gubernatorial power, and State legislature functioning in India’s democracy. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Presidential Reference on Governor’s Timelines: Supreme Court Hearing Day 3 Read More »

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023)

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023)

Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023)

Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023)

The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes.

Kerala High Court Forms Committee to Strengthen Judicial Administration in Lakshadweep

Madhya Pradesh Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma Withdraws Resignation After Harassment Allegations

Presidential Reference on Governor’s Timelines: Supreme Court Hearing Day 3

Pune Court Summons Makers of Jolly LLB 3 Over Alleged Insult to Legal Profession

Calcutta High Court Seeks State’s Response on Stray Dog Sterilisation Plea

Editorial message

Quick links

Contact info