sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Sada Law

CLAT PG Candidate Challenges ₹30,000 Counselling Fee in Delhi High Court, Cites Financial Hardship

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today CLAT PG Candidate Challenges ₹30,000 Counselling Fee in Delhi High Court, Cites Financial Hardship Bombay High Court Pushes for Swift Resolution in Sony vs Tata Play Licensing Dispute Operation Thunder: How Nagpur is Leading India’s War Against Drugs with Tech and Community Power INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LAWKARI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JURIDICA SOLUTION LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ATREUS LAW FIRM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SG BANK, MUMBAI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KKR, GURUGRAM LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT NYAYASARTHAK CLAT PG Candidate Challenges ₹30,000 Counselling Fee in Delhi High Court, Cites Financial Hardship PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 20 June 2025 A CLAT PG 2025 candidate has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the ₹30,000 counselling fee imposed by the Consortium of NLUs, citing financial hardship. Learn about the legal plea, key dates, and its broader impact on law aspirants. CLAT PG Candidate Challenges ₹30,000 Counselling Fee in Delhi High Court A legal plea has been filed in the Delhi High Court by a candidate of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) PG 2025, questioning the “exorbitant” counselling fee levied by the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs). Hearing Scheduled Before Delhi High Court Vacation Bench The issue was presented before the vacation Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta on June 20, 2025. The court has listed the matter for a full hearing on June 23. Petitioner Cites Arbitrary Fee and Financial Hardship The petition was filed by Jatin Shrivastava, who secured 474th rank in the CLAT PG results. He argues that the ₹30,000 mandatory counselling fee is arbitrarily imposed and disproportionately affects candidates from financially weaker sections. Shrivastava highlighted that his family survives solely on the income of his mother, a government school teacher. Dependence on Education Loan for LLM Admission The plea reveals that Shrivastava plans to fund his LLM education through an education loan, which would only be disbursed after admission to a participating NLU. Importantly, the loan amount is designated to be transferred directly to the university—not to the student or the CLAT Consortium—making upfront fee payments difficult. Breakdown of Counselling and Confirmation Charges According to the petition, all candidates must pay: ₹30,000 as a mandatory counselling fee ₹20,000 for each round of confirmation An additional ₹20,000 to freeze choices Shrivastava claims that such substantial fees have no logical justification, stating they deviate from the intended purpose of a counselling process and act as a barrier to equal opportunity. Accusation of Discrimination and Exclusion The plea labels the fee structure as discriminatory and disproportionate, suggesting it penalizes candidates who lack any earning capacity. This issue, the plea argues, creates a significant barrier for deserving students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Parallel Petition in Kerala High Court Interestingly, a similar petition has been submitted to the Kerala High Court. That case is expected to come up for hearing on July 22, 2025, indicating that the issue may soon gain nationwide attention. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases CLAT PG Candidate Challenges ₹30,000 Counselling Fee in Delhi High Court, Cites Financial Hardship Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Pushes for Swift Resolution in Sony vs Tata Play Licensing Dispute Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Operation Thunder: How Nagpur is Leading India’s War Against Drugs with Tech and Community Power Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

CLAT PG Candidate Challenges ₹30,000 Counselling Fee in Delhi High Court, Cites Financial Hardship Read More »

Bombay High Court Pushes for Swift Resolution in Sony vs Tata Play Licensing Dispute

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Bombay High Court Pushes for Swift Resolution in Sony vs Tata Play Licensing Dispute Operation Thunder: How Nagpur is Leading India’s War Against Drugs with Tech and Community Power INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LAWKARI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JURIDICA SOLUTION LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ATREUS LAW FIRM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SG BANK, MUMBAI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KKR, GURUGRAM LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT NYAYASARTHAK K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Bombay High Court Pushes for Swift Resolution in Sony vs Tata Play Licensing Dispute KASHISH JAHAN 20 June 2025 The Bombay High Court urges TDSAT to swiftly resolve the licensing dispute between Sony Pictures Networks and Tata Play, emphasizing the impact on consumers and the broadcasting industry. Disruption in the Indian Entertainment Sector The ongoing legal battle between Sony Pictures Networks and Tata Play has drawn the attention of the Bombay High Court. The Court has urged the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to expedite its decision on the content licensing dispute, which threatens to disrupt access to television channels for millions of Indian consumers. Why Timely Justice Matters In high-stakes broadcasting and telecommunications cases, prolonged delays can cause significant commercial damage and inconvenience to consumers. The Bombay High Court’s intervention reflects judicial concern about the cascading effects of such disputes on public services and business operations. Impact on Regulatory Practices This high-profile case underscores the critical need for efficient dispute resolution systems within India’s rapidly evolving media and telecom industries. Regulatory bodies are now under increased pressure to handle cases swiftly to avoid systemic bottlenecks that can affect viewers, content creators, and service providers alike. What’s Next for Sony and Tata Play? The TDSAT is expected to schedule an early hearing by July 2025. Industry observers are closely monitoring the situation for its implications on future contracts and broadcaster-platform relationships. The outcome could reshape the dynamics of television content licensing in India. Conclusion: A Step Toward Judicial Efficiency By pushing for timely intervention, the Bombay High Court reinforces the importance of judicial efficiency in protecting consumer rights and maintaining stability in the digital entertainment ecosystem. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Bombay High Court Pushes for Swift Resolution in Sony vs Tata Play Licensing Dispute Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Operation Thunder: How Nagpur is Leading India’s War Against Drugs with Tech and Community Power Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Bombay High Court Pushes for Swift Resolution in Sony vs Tata Play Licensing Dispute Read More »

Operation Thunder: How Nagpur is Leading India’s War Against Drugs with Tech and Community Power

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Operation Thunder: How Nagpur is Leading India’s War Against Drugs with Tech and Community Power INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LAWKARI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JURIDICA SOLUTION LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ATREUS LAW FIRM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SG BANK, MUMBAI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KKR, GURUGRAM LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT NYAYASARTHAK K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Operation Thunder: How Nagpur is Leading India’s War Against Drugs with Tech and Community Power KASHISH JAHAN 20 June 2025 Discover how Nagpur is leading India’s anti-narcotics fight through Operation Thunder, combining cutting-edge technology, strategic policing, and community awareness to battle drug trafficking and protect youth. Nagpur’s Battle Against Drug Trafficking: Inside Operation Thunder’s Powerful Impact Under the dynamic leadership of Commissioner Ravinder Singal, the Nagpur Police have launched an aggressive anti-narcotics campaign that is setting national standards. Known as Operation Thunder, this mission has, over the course of 473 days, led to 730 arrests and the seizure of illegal substances valued at over ₹8.6 crore. Harnessing Technology for Drug Crime Control Far from a conventional crackdown, Operation Thunder employed advanced technology to disrupt drug networks. Tools like SIMBA biometric tracking and DOGR forms enabled law enforcement to identify offenders and track syndicates with precision. The initiative also revitalized older cases under the NDPS Act, targeting links to major hubs like Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Mumbai, Odisha, and Rajasthan. This strategic, data-driven approach amplified the impact of police operations in dismantling drug supply chains. Community Engagement: Winning the War Beyond the Streets Acknowledging that enforcement alone isn’t enough, the Nagpur Police launched extensive public awareness initiatives. Through rallies, debates, competitions, and street plays, they reached thousands—especially youth—with educational messages. These efforts are aligned with global movements such as the International Day Against Drug Abuse, underlining the city’s commitment to both prevention and enforcement. Nagpur: A Blueprint for India’s Anti-Drug Strategy Nagpur’s integrated approach—combining high-tech enforcement with grassroots outreach—serves as a national model in combating the drug crisis. It highlights how collaboration between police, technology, and community can deliver sustainable results. Conclusion: A Safer Future Through Unity and Innovation Operation Thunder is more than a campaign—it’s a movement. By merging innovation, leadership, and civic involvement, Nagpur shows what’s possible in the war against drugs. This is not just a success story—it’s a roadmap for cities across India and beyond. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Operation Thunder: How Nagpur is Leading India’s War Against Drugs with Tech and Community Power Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Operation Thunder: How Nagpur is Leading India’s War Against Drugs with Tech and Community Power Read More »

K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today 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 LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DEEPAK SINGH THAKUR & ASSOCIATES Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Trump Signs Sweeping Economic Orders: Tariffs, Spending Cuts, and Immigration Clampdown China Condemns Gaza Hospital Attack, Calls for Ceasefire UK Asylum Debate Intensifies as Nigel Farage Pushes “Operation Restoring Justice” Australia Expels Iran’s Ambassador After IRGC -Linked Synagogue Arson K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Righ NITU KUMARI​ 20 june 2025 Discover the landmark 2025 Supreme Court of India ruling in K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu that recognizes maternity leave as a fundamental reproductive right, overturning denial based on the two-child policy. Learn about the case facts, legal provisions, and implications for women’s rights in India. Introduction to K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu Case The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on May 23, 2025, in the case of K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu. This case addressed the denial of maternity leave to a female government employee due to the state’s two-child policy. The Court ruled that maternity leave is a crucial part of reproductive rights and cannot be denied on the basis of a two-child norm, affirming women’s constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and personal liberty. Facts of the Case: Denial of Maternity Leave for Third Child K Umadevi, a government school teacher in Tamil Nadu, was denied maternity leave after becoming pregnant with her third child from her second marriage. The state invoked Fundamental Rule 101(a), which restricts maternity leave for female government employees who already have two surviving children. Despite her challenge in the Madras High Court, where she initially won, the Division Bench overturned the decision. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court of India for a final verdict. Key Legal Issues in K Umadevi vs Tamil Nadu Government Is maternity leave a constitutional right linked to reproductive rights or merely a statutory benefit? Can the two-child policy justify denial of maternity leave to female government employees? Does the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 impose any limit on the number of children for which maternity leave can be granted? Should service rules consider children not under the mother’s custody (from a prior marriage) when applying the two-child norm? Relevant Legal Provisions Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to Life and Personal Liberty The Supreme Court examined if denying maternity leave violates Article 21, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. Section 5 & Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 These sections ensure paid maternity leave during pregnancy and after childbirth, and give the Act overriding power over inconsistent laws or service rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Right to Equality The Court highlighted that denying maternity leave based on the number of children without individual consideration is discriminatory and violates the right to equality. Supreme Court Judgment: Upholding Maternity Leave as a Reproductive Right The two-judge bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, set aside the Division Bench’s ruling and upheld the Single Judge’s decision in favor of K Umadevi. The Court emphasized: Maternity leave is an integral part of women’s reproductive rights, encompassing dignity, privacy, health, and equality. Population control policies like the two-child norm must be balanced with the constitutional rights of female employees. Maternity leave must be granted regardless of the number of children, as childbirth is a natural incident of life. Women should be treated with respect and dignity in the workforce, and maternity benefits are essential to support their well-being and work performance. Impact and Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) is a significant victory for women’s reproductive autonomy and labor rights. It clarifies that denying maternity leave based on restrictive population control policies violates constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21. This judgment reinforces maternity benefits as fundamental rights, encouraging fair treatment of women employees across India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws 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 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 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Read More »

Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims REHA BHARGAV 20 June 2025 The Supreme Court clarifies that the affinity test is not mandatory for verifying Scheduled Tribe (ST) claims. Documentary evidence remains primary for ST status verification in Maharashtra and across India. Introduction The landmark case of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (March 24, 2023) addresses the critical issue of verifying Scheduled Tribe (ST) status in India, focusing on the “Thakur” community in Maharashtra. This judgment by the Supreme Court of India highlights the role of the affinity test in caste verification and clarifies that it cannot be used as the sole determinant for granting or denying ST status. Background and Facts of the Case The dispute arose from concerns over fraudulent claims to Scheduled Tribe status, which grant access to benefits such as reservation in education, employment, and political representation. Maharashtra’s Scrutiny Committees and Vigilance Cells used the affinity test—a method assessing claimants’ knowledge of tribal customs—to verify ST claims. However, genuine claimants were reportedly rejected based solely on failing this test, despite submitting valid documentary evidence like ancestral caste certificates, school records, and revenue documents. Previous conflicting judgments on the affinity test created confusion, prompting the Supreme Court to clarify the legal position. Key Issue in the Case Is the affinity test a mandatory and conclusive method for verifying Scheduled Tribe claims, or should it only be supplementary when documentary evidence is inconclusive? Arguments Presented Petitioner’s Viewpoint Over-reliance on the affinity test is arbitrary and dismisses valid documentary evidence. Tribal customs evolve due to modernization and urbanization, making affinity tests less reliable. Documentary evidence should have primacy over anthropological tests. The affinity test was sometimes misused without proper justification or recorded reasons. Conflicting judicial precedents necessitate clarity. Improper use of the affinity test leads to wrongful denial of rights for genuine tribals. Respondent’s Viewpoint The affinity test helps prevent misuse of ST certificates by non-tribals. Past judgments support the affinity test as an integral verification tool. Verification should be holistic, combining affinity tests, documentary evidence, and field inquiries. Vigilance Cells have authority to conduct affinity tests and background investigations. Rejection is justified if claimants fail the affinity test and have questionable documentation. Strict scrutiny is essential to protect the reservation system’s integrity. Supreme Court Judgment Highlights Affinity Test Is Not Conclusive: The Supreme Court ruled that the affinity test cannot be the sole or mandatory test for verifying ST claims; it is only a supplementary tool when documentary evidence raises doubts. Primacy of Documentary Evidence: Documentary proof such as caste certificates, historical records, and official documents remain the primary basis for ST status verification. Recognition of Cultural Evolution: The Court acknowledged that tribal customs evolve due to urban migration and social integration, meaning unfamiliarity with traditional customs alone cannot disqualify a claimant. Limited Role of Vigilance Cells: Vigilance Cells should be involved only when necessary and after specific doubts are recorded by Scrutiny Committees. Reconciliation of Conflicting Judgments: The Court clarified earlier contradictory rulings and overruled the idea that failure in the affinity test is fatal to ST claims. Directions for Scrutiny Committees: Committees must prioritize documentary verification, exercise caution with affinity tests, and provide reasoned decisions respecting constitutional rights. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s judgment provides a balanced framework for verifying Scheduled Tribe claims. While the affinity test may serve as a useful supplementary tool, it cannot replace documentary evidence as the foundation for determining ST status. The ruling protects genuine tribal claimants and safeguards the integrity of the reservation system by preventing arbitrary rejections based solely on cultural unfamiliarity. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws 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 Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Against Bengal Police Officers Over 2019 Howrah Lathicharge Incident Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) NITU KUMARI 19 June 2025 In Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court of India ruled that prolonged pre-trial detention under the NDPS Act violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learn how this landmark 2023 judgment balanced personal liberty with statutory bail restrictions. Introduction – Liberty vs. Law in NDPS Bail Cases In a landmark 2023 decision, the Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of prolonged incarceration of an undertrial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioner, Mohd. Muslim, had been held in pre-trial custody for over seven years without trial completion. This case raised urgent constitutional concerns about Article 21—which guarantees personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial. The Court emphasized that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent bail restrictions, cannot be interpreted so rigidly as to violate these fundamental rights. Background and Facts of the Case Arrest and Charges Under NDPS Act In 2015, Mohd. Muslim was arrested for alleged possession and trafficking of a commercial quantity of narcotic substances, a serious offence under the NDPS Act. He remained in custody for over seven years, during which the trial saw minimal progress, with several prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. Despite multiple bail applications, the courts consistently rejected his pleas, citing the strict conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which heavily restrict bail for such offences. Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court The core issue was: Does prolonged pre-trial incarceration under Section 37 of the NDPS Act violate Article 21, and should bail be granted when trials are indefinitely delayed? The petitioner argued that his right to liberty and presumption of innocence had been infringed due to the lack of trial progress, while the State emphasized the seriousness of narcotic offences and the strict statutory bar on bail. Petitioner’s Arguments – Liberty Must Prevail The petitioner contended: Seven years in custody without conviction violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The presumption of innocence must not be defeated by indefinite detention. Section 37’s bail restrictions cannot override constitutional protections. Previous Supreme Court rulings recognize trial delays as valid grounds for bail. Respondent’s Arguments – Public Interest and Statutory Limits The State (NCT of Delhi) argued: The case involved a serious narcotics offence, justifying strict scrutiny. Section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly restricts bail unless the accused is deemed not guilty and unlikely to reoffend. While there were delays, they were procedural and case-specific. Granting bail could weaken the NDPS Act’s deterrent effect. Supreme Court’s Judgment – Bail Granted in the Interest of Justice The Supreme Court, led by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, granted bail and made the following key observations: Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21. The stringency of Section 37 does not override constitutional safeguards. Courts must prioritize liberty when systemic delays prevent fair trial timelines. The judgment stated: “Deprivation of liberty for a single day is one too many… Prolonged incarceration without trial is a travesty of justice.” The Court ruled that bail must be granted when an undertrial has spent more time in custody than many convicts, without any meaningful progress in their case. Conclusion – A Landmark on Bail and Constitutional Rights This judgment in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) is a critical precedent that reaffirms the primacy of personal liberty and fair trial under Article 21. It signals a more humane and constitutionally balanced approach to bail decisions under special criminal laws like the NDPS Act. While recognizing the seriousness of drug offences, the Court made it clear: No statute can justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration. The ruling strengthens the constitutional commitment to justice, liberty, and the presumption of innocence. H2: Key Takeaways for Legal and Constitutional Law NDPS Act Section 37 is not absolute; constitutional rights prevail. Trial delays are a legitimate ground for bail, even in serious offences. Pre-trial detention beyond a reasonable period is unconstitutional. The judgment reinforces the importance of balancing security with liberty. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws 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 Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on SBI vs Rajesh Agarwal: Borrowers’ Right to Hearing Under SARFAESI Act and RBI Fraud Classification Guidelines Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Read More »

Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Against Bengal Police Officers Over 2019 Howrah Lathicharge Incident JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GREENFINCH LEGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., ANDHRA PRADESH Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Nitu Kumari 19 June 2025 Supreme Court affirms maternity leave as a reproductive right in K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025), ruling two-child norms can’t deny constitutional maternity benefits. Introduction In a landmark decision on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of K. Umadevi, a government school teacher denied maternity leave under Tamil Nadu’s two-child policy. The ruling emphasized that maternity leave is a constitutional component of a woman’s reproductive rights, outweighing restrictive service rules. Background of the Case Who is K. Umadevi? K. Umadevi was appointed as an English teacher in a Government Higher Secondary School in Tamil Nadu in 2012. Following the end of her first marriage and after remarrying, she became pregnant in 2021. She was denied maternity leave on the grounds that this was her third child. Reason for Denial The Tamil Nadu government cited Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a), which bars maternity leave for employees with more than two surviving children. This rule prompted legal scrutiny over whether administrative service rules can override constitutional rights. Legal Issues Before the Court Can the two-child policy override a woman’s statutory and constitutional rights? Is maternity leave just a service benefit or a fundamental right under Article 21? Does the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 restrict leave based on the number of children? Should the policy apply if the mother does not have custody of earlier children? Relevant Legal Provisions 1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty Guarantees every individual the right to live with dignity. The Court assessed whether denying maternity leave violated this essential right. 2. Article 14 – Right to Equality Protects against discrimination. The case examined whether denying maternity leave to a remarried woman was a violation of equality before the law. 3. Section 5 – Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Provides maternity benefits regardless of the number of childbirths, adjusting only the duration of leave. It does not prohibit the leave itself. 4. Section 27 – Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 States the Act overrides all inconsistent laws, including administrative service rules such as FR 101(a). Court’s Observations and Ruling Denial of Maternity Leave Was Unlawful The Madras High Court Division Bench initially denied relief to Umadevi. However, the Supreme Court Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan overturned this decision, holding that: Maternity benefits are part of reproductive rights. Service rules cannot violate a woman’s right to dignity and equality. State policy and constitutional rights must be interpreted harmoniously. Recognition of Reproductive Rights The judgment affirmed that reproductive autonomy includes: The right to health The right to privacy The right to equality The right to non-discrimination These are essential rights that cannot be overridden by bureaucratic norms. Final Orders by the Court The Supreme Court directed the following: Set aside the Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court. Uphold the Single Judge’s earlier order favoring Umadevi. Mandate that the Tamil Nadu government grant maternity leave as per the Maternity Benefit Act. Conclusion The K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) case is a landmark decision affirming that maternity leave is a fundamental right tied to reproductive freedom. It reiterates that personal liberty and equality under the Constitution cannot be curtailed by arbitrary administrative policies. This judgment sets a strong precedent for upholding women’s rights in India, ensuring that employment policies respect constitutional values and human dignity. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on SBI vs Rajesh Agarwal: Borrowers’ Right to Hearing Under SARFAESI Act and RBI Fraud Classification Guidelines Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan: Interpretation of Remand Date for Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Read More »

Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Against Bengal Police Officers Over 2019 Howrah Lathicharge Incident JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GREENFINCH LEGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., ANDHRA PRADESH LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT BURGEON LAW Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case KASHISH JAHAN 19 June 2025 Bombay High Court upholds ₹538 crore arbitral award against BCCI in favor of Kochi Tuskers Kerala. Explore the legal battle, IPL franchise termination, and arbitration outcome in this landmark cricket dispute. Kochi Tuskers Kerala Win ₹538 Crore Arbitration Case Against BCCI In a major legal development, the Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award of over ₹538 crore in favor of the now-defunct Kochi Tuskers Kerala against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The ruling in the case BCCI v Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Another marks a significant victory for the franchise once part of the Indian Premier League (IPL). Court Rejects BCCI’s Appeal Under Arbitration Act Justice R.I. Chagla ruled that the BCCI’s appeal was unfounded, reinforcing the limited scope under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “BCCI’s dissatisfaction regarding the findings on evidence or merits cannot form a basis for setting aside the award.” The Court emphasized that the arbitrator’s conclusion—that BCCI’s termination of the franchise constituted a repudiatory breach of contract—was supported by a fair evaluation of the evidence. Franchise Termination and the Legal Dispute The dispute began in 2011 when the BCCI terminated the Kochi Tuskers franchise. The team was originally awarded to a consortium led by Rendezvous Sports World (RSW) and later operated by Kochi Cricket Private Limited (KCPL). According to the BCCI, KCPL failed to provide a required bank guarantee by March 2011. However, KCPL cited challenges such as: Lack of stadium availability Pending approvals for shareholding Reduction in the number of IPL matches Despite ongoing engagement and financial payments, BCCI abruptly terminated the franchise and encashed a prior guarantee. Arbitration Ruling in Favor of Kochi Cricket Private Limited In 2012, KCPL and RSW initiated arbitration proceedings claiming wrongful termination. The tribunal in 2015 awarded: Over ₹384 crore in damages to KCPL Ordered RSW to return ₹153 crore with interest and costs BCCI challenged the award, arguing: The arbitrator exceeded their legal authority KCPL’s failure to submit the bank guarantee was a fundamental breach The award for lost profits and wasted expenditure exceeded contractual limits RSW’s arbitration claim was invalid under the Indian Partnership Act High Court Finds BCCI Waived Bank Guarantee Requirement The Court dismissed BCCI’s arguments and agreed that their prolonged engagement with KCPL implied a waiver of the original bank guarantee deadline. “BCCI, through its actions, relinquished the requirement under Clause 8.4 of the KCPL Franchise Agreement to submit the guarantee by March 22, 2011.” The judge concluded there was no procedural illegality or breach of arbitration norms. The arbitration process was deemed valid, and both KCPL and RSW were allowed to withdraw the awarded sums. BCCI was granted six weeks to file an appeal. Conclusion: A Precedent in Cricket Arbitration This judgment is a significant precedent in Indian sports law, affirming the integrity of arbitration in franchise disputes. As the BCCI considers its next move, the ruling highlights the importance of fair treatment and adherence to contractual obligations in the IPL and beyond. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Read More »

Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Against Bengal Police Officers Over 2019 Howrah Lathicharge Incident JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GREENFINCH LEGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., ANDHRA PRADESH LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT BURGEON LAW Tamil Nadu ADGP Arrested Following Madras High Court Order in Teenage Abduction Case Involving MLA Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 19 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India rebukes the Karnataka High Court over the proposed ban on Thug Life, defending Kamal Haasan’s freedom of expression and condemning mob threats. Learn how this ruling reinforces the rule of law and artistic freedom in Indian cinema. Supreme Court Defends Kamal Haasan and Criticizes Thug Life Ban in Karnataka On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the proposed ban on the Tamil film Thug Life in Karnataka, starring acclaimed actor Kamal Haasan. The apex court condemned the pressure from groups attempting to suppress the film’s release over alleged controversial remarks made by Haasan. Supreme Court: Rule of Law Must Prevail Over Mob Intimidation The bench emphasized that the rule of law cannot be overridden by threats from “groups of hooligans.” The justices stated firmly that public disagreement should be expressed through civil discourse—not through threats of violence or cinema vandalism. “If someone has made a statement, counter it with another statement. You cannot threaten to burn down theatres,” the court remarked. Freedom of Expression is Fundamental, Says the Bench While recognizing that residents of Karnataka and Bengaluru may oppose Kamal Haasan’s statements, the court insisted that constitutional freedoms must be upheld. The right to dissent does not justify intimidation or coercion. “If the enlightened individuals of Karnataka believe Haasan was wrong, they can respond publicly—not with threats,” the court noted. SC Questions Karnataka High Court’s Role in Seeking Apology The Supreme Court transferred the plea submitted by Thug Life’s producer from the Karnataka High Court and requested a response from the state government. The justices expressed concern over the High Court’s alleged suggestion that Kamal Haasan apologize to diffuse the controversy. “Why should the High Court ask for an apology? That is not its function,” the bench asserted. Film Certified by CBFC Must Be Allowed to Release Reiterating legal precedent, the court stated that any film cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) must be permitted to release nationwide. Citizens may choose to watch—or not watch—the film, but no one has the right to block its release through threats. “We cannot let mob mentality dictate the release of films,” the court declared. Previous Rulings Reaffirm Artistic Freedom in India To reinforce its judgment, the court cited past decisions, including the Bombay High Court verdict on the Mi Nathuram Boltoy play and a case involving Imran Pratapgarhi. These precedents emphasize the importance of protecting diverse opinions in a democracy. “We Are the Custodians of the Rule of Law” The Supreme Court concluded with a strong reminder of its duty: to uphold constitutional values and defend free speech. It reaffirmed that judicial institutions must protect filmmakers and artists from unlawful censorship. “We are the custodians of the rule of law. That is the purpose of the Supreme Court,” the bench concluded. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Read More »

Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Against Bengal Police Officers Over 2019 Howrah Lathicharge Incident JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GREENFINCH LEGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., ANDHRA PRADESH LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT BURGEON LAW Tamil Nadu ADGP Arrested Following Madras High Court Order in Teenage Abduction Case Involving MLA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT A. K. SINGH & ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws KASHISH JAHAN 19 June 2025 A special court in Lucknow convicts a woman for filing a false gangrape case under the SC/ST Act. Explore the verdict’s legal, social, and judicial impact, highlighting the implications of misusing protective laws in India. Landmark Verdict on Misuse of Protective Laws In a significant ruling, a special SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act court in Lucknow sentenced a 29-year-old woman to seven and a half years of rigorous imprisonment for filing a false gangrape case. Filed in 2021, the case alleged gangrape and caste-based violence by five men. After reviewing the evidence, the court found the complaint was fabricated and motivated by personal enmity. The verdict is attracting national attention due to its strong message against the misuse of laws meant to protect marginalized communities. Court’s Reasoning and Evaluation of Evidence The court cited multiple contradictions in the complainant’s statements, inconsistencies in the medical reports, and testimony from independent witnesses that exposed the falsehood of the claims. The court emphasized that false accusations can destroy innocent lives and erode the credibility of protective legislation. A fine of ₹2.01 lakh was also imposed on the convict, to be paid as compensation to the five wrongfully accused men who faced severe social and emotional repercussions during the course of the legal proceedings. Broader Legal and Social Implications This case brings attention to the urgent need to balance protection and fairness within special legislation like the SC/ST Act. While this law is vital for addressing oppression against Dalits and Adivasis, even isolated incidents of misuse can undermine its public support and moral foundation. The judgment stresses the importance of preliminary scrutiny and due diligence before proceeding with serious accusations under special provisions. Legal Precedent and Future Safeguards This ruling serves as a cautionary precedent, urging lawmakers to consider procedural reforms that detect false allegations without weakening the law’s original intent. Legal experts caution that while punishing misuse is necessary, it should not become an excuse to delegitimize real victims of atrocities. Going forward, courts and lawmakers must aim to uphold justice while preserving the integrity of protective laws. Conclusion: A Call for Judicial Balance and Integrity The Lucknow court’s decision is a powerful reminder of the responsibilities tied to protective legislation. It underscores the need for a legal culture that is fair, evidence-driven, and protective of both victims and the falsely accused. This case will likely influence how future cases under the SC/ST Act are evaluated across India, reinforcing the need for a judicious and balanced approach to justice. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote