sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Sada Law

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Ruling on SECC 2011: Maharashtra’s Plea for OBC Data Denied Due to Inaccurate Caste Information Bombay High Court Sentences Woman to Jail for Contempt of Court Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Allegations Against Judiciary Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ordered the removal of an unauthorized temple and gurudwara encroaching on a public road in Kharar, Punjab. In its directive, the court provided six weeks for the removal of holy texts, idols, and other religious artifacts following the proper observance of rituals. Court’s Findings Justice Harsh Bunger reviewed the case records and confirmed that the construction of the religious structures had been carried out without approved building plans or permissions from the relevant authorities. There was no evidence to suggest that these structures were part of the colony’s approved layout plan. The court was responding to a writ petition seeking the removal of alleged illegal encroachments by the Managing Committees of: Shri Guru Nanak Darbar Gurudwara Radha Madhav Mandir Both structures, according to the petition, obstructed public access to a commercial market through the installation of barricades, boundary walls, gates, and hoardings. Key Precedents The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahesh Prasad Gupta v. R.G., Jharkhand High Court and Others (2002), which held that the demolition of unauthorized structures, even religious ones, is permissible when they lack proper approval. Court’s Directives Self-Removal by Committees: The Gurudwara and Mandir Managing Committees were given six weeks to voluntarily remove the structures and ensure proper handling of religious artifacts. Action by Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM): If the committees fail to comply, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Kharar), in coordination with the police, will oversee the removal of the unauthorized structures. All rituals for the removal of holy texts, books, and idols must be observed prior to demolition. Cost of Removal: The entire cost of removing the unauthorized buildings will be borne by the respondents. Follow-Up Measures: Non-compliance by the committees will lead to the filing of a status report by the SDM, which may result in contempt proceedings. Conclusion The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the importance of adhering to legal procedures for construction, even in cases involving religious edifices. By balancing the observance of religious sentiments with the enforcement of law, the court’s decision aims to ensure unobstructed public access to essential infrastructure. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Read More »

Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Ruling on SECC 2011: Maharashtra’s Plea for OBC Data Denied Due to Inaccurate Caste Information Bombay High Court Sentences Woman to Jail for Contempt of Court Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Allegations Against Judiciary Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 The Punjab and Haryana High Court questions the Special POCSO Court over the victim’s surrender as a prosecution witness in a rape case, emphasizing the need for her testimony for a fair trial. Overview of Vijay v/s State of Haryana The Punjab and Haryana High Court has raised concerns over a recent development in a rape case under the POCSO Act. The court found it “strange” that the victim surrendered as a prosecution witness and has sought an explanation from the Special POCSO Court regarding this unusual situation. Key Details of the Case: The Court’s Observations Justice Amarjot Bhatti stated that the victim’s testimony is essential for ensuring a fair and definitive trial. The decision to surrender the victim as a prosecution witness by the Public Prosecutor was termed peculiar. This action was also noted in the Zimni ruling, further prompting judicial scrutiny. Request for Explanation The High Court has instructed the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) to submit a detailed report outlining the circumstances and facts that led to the victim’s surrender. The objective is to clarify this significant procedural anomaly. Background of the Case The petitioner, accused of raping a 16-year-old girl in 2020, has been in custody for over four years and eight months. His attorney, Mr. Rahul Singh, argued that the charges were fabricated. Meanwhile, the court highlighted that the victim was under 16 at the time of the alleged crime, which makes the charges particularly serious under the POCSO Act. Previous Court Ruling In January, the court acknowledged the lengthy incarceration of the accused but emphasized the importance of the victim’s age during the alleged incident. It directed the trial court to expedite the collection of prosecution evidence to avoid further delays. Upcoming Hearing Date The next hearing for this case is scheduled for May 27, 2025. The High Court has requested all involved parties to ensure that the trial progresses without unnecessary hindrance. Legal Representation Petitioner’s Advocate: Mr. Rahul Singh Additional Advocate General for Haryana: Ms. Aditi Girdhar Conclusion This case highlights the complexities involved in legal proceedings under the POCSO Act, particularly when dealing with sensitive issues like the victim’s testimony. The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s proactive measures aim to ensure justice while addressing procedural anomalies. As the trial continues, it underscores the importance of safeguarding the interests of victims while ensuring fair treatment for the accused. The upcoming hearing will likely shed more light on this unique legal situation. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Read More »

Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Ruling on SECC 2011: Maharashtra’s Plea for OBC Data Denied Due to Inaccurate Caste Information Bombay High Court Sentences Woman to Jail for Contempt of Court Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Allegations Against Judiciary BSF Policeman Unintentionally Crosses International Border, Pakistan Rangers Detain Him Despite Multiple Flag Meetings India-Shuts Attari-Wagah Border as Pakistani Nationals Depart Post-Pahalgam Terror Attack Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram MAHI SINHA 03 May 2025 The Supreme Court expressed grave concern over recurring fires at the Bandhwari landfill in Gurugram and urged the CAQM to issue preventive directives. Learn about the legal, environmental, and public health implications. Supreme Court Shocked by Fire Incident at Bandhwari Landfill In a recent development under the landmark case of MC Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India expressed alarm over the massive fire at the Bandhwari landfill in Gurugram. The Court noted that even after extinguishing the fire, lingering smoke continues to pose a serious public health hazard. Fire Took Four Days to Contain A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that at least two fires occurred at the site in April 2025. The latest one took four days to bring under control. “We were shocked after watching the video,” the bench remarked, highlighting the enormous air pollution caused by the incident. Legacy Waste and the Scale of the Problem The Municipal Corporation of Gurugram (MCG) informed the Court that the landfill currently holds 13 lakh metric tons of garbage, including 9 lakh metric tons of untreated legacy waste. The Court ordered the Municipal Commissioner of Gurugram to file an affidavit by May 15, outlining the timeline for removing this waste. Court Directs CAQM to Take Preventive Measures The Court stressed that the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) must issue enforceable directives under Section 12 of the CAQM Act, 2021, to prevent such fires. The Bandhwari site is used by both Gurugram and Faridabad, and similar incidents have occurred throughout the National Capital Region (NCR). Solid Waste Management Rules Violated Justice Oka questioned whether the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 had been implemented, noting that all compliance deadlines had already expired. The Municipal Commissioner revealed that the landfill spans 30 acres and a seven-year cleanup plan is underway, expected to conclude by the end of June 2025. Legal Framework and Non-Compliance Penalties The Court reiterated the importance of clause (zj) of Rule 15 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, which mandates local authorities to clear legacy waste within a year of the rules’ implementation. This deadline expired in 2017. The Court also emphasized Section 14 of the CAQM Act, which outlines strict penalties for violating CAQM directives, including up to five years in prison and a fine of ₹1 crore. A Call for Urgent Environmental Action This incident has brought to light the urgent need for sustainable waste management and stricter enforcement of environmental laws. The Supreme Court has made it clear that recurring landfill fires in the NCR cannot be ignored. “The situation demands swift, legally binding action to safeguard public health and the environment,” the Court concluded. Conclusion The Bandhwari landfill fire is more than a local incident—it is a symptom of larger systemic failures in waste management and environmental governance across the NCR. The Supreme Court’s response underscores the urgency of preventive strategies, legal enforcement, and long-term remediation. It is now up to local authorities and central agencies like CAQM to act decisively. The health and well-being of millions depend on swift and effective intervention. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Ruling on SECC 2011: Maharashtra’s Plea for OBC Data Denied Due to Inaccurate Caste Information Bombay High Court Sentences Woman to Jail for Contempt of Court Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Allegations Against Judiciary BSF Policeman Unintentionally Crosses International Border, Pakistan Rangers Detain Him Despite Multiple Flag Meetings India-Shuts Attari-Wagah Border as Pakistani Nationals Depart Post-Pahalgam Terror Attack  Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions MAHI SINHA 03 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India reaffirms the applicability of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on salaries paid to Christian nuns and priests in government-aided institutions, emphasizing uniform tax laws regardless of religious vows or income redirection. Supreme Court Rejects Review Petitions on TDS for Religious Salaries Background and Case Overview: In the landmark case Institute of the Fransican Missionaries of Mary and others v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed review petitions challenging the imposition of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on salaries paid to Catholic nuns and priests working in government-aided educational institutions. On May 2, 2025, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra found no grounds for review, reaffirming their earlier judgment from November 7, 2024. One of the petitions was withdrawn and subsequently dismissed, while all requests for an oral hearing were also denied. Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Key Observations The petitions challenged a Madras High Court ruling which had stated that TDS is applicable to the wages of nuns and missionaries. During the November 2024 hearing, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices Pardiwala and Misra, made it clear that tax obligations apply uniformly: “If a Hindu priest advises donating income to perform puja, and not keep it, it doesn’t exempt him from taxation. The same rule applies to others. The law must be consistent.” The Court emphasized that the taxability is determined at the point of receipt, not based on how the funds are later used or to whom they are transferred. The salary, if credited to an individual’s name and recorded in the accounts, is liable for TDS, irrespective of whether the funds are ultimately retained or passed on to religious institutions like a Diocese or Congregation. Counterarguments and Dismissal by the Bench Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued that nuns and priests, having taken vows of poverty and “experienced civil death” under Canon Law, are not liable to pay taxes and do not file income tax returns. He further cited an existing CBDT circular suggesting clergy were exempt from TDS. However, the Court dismissed this view, reiterating that: An individual, as per the Income Tax Act, is someone who can receive income, and clergy members do fall under this definition. Not all receipts are taxable, but a receipt is taxable if it constitutes income, regardless of later donation or surrender. Datar warned that the ruling would impact over 4,000 priests across India, but the bench held firm on the principle of equal application of tax law. Madras High Court’s Judgment and Precedent The Income Tax Department had filed appeals against a single bench ruling that favored religious organizations. That bench had accepted the argument that, due to vows of poverty and donation of income to the Church or Diocese, no income accrued personally to the nuns and priests, thus exempting them from TDS. However, the Division Bench—comprising Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and Dr. Vineet Kothari—reversed this decision, stating that: Salaries are earned in an individual capacity. Donations made post-receipt represent application of income, not a diversion by overriding title. Religious organizations cannot claim a privileged position in taxation. They referenced the Kerala High Court ruling in Fr. Sabu P. Thomas v. Union of India, which clarified that the doctrine of diversion of income by overriding title did not apply here. For such a doctrine to hold, a legal obligation must require the direct diversion of income at the source to another party, without the individual having access or entitlement to it. Final Takeaway: Uniform Application of Tax Laws The High Court emphasized that the salary was credited to the clergy’s individual bank accounts and earned under employment contracts—with the State Government, not the Church. Therefore, the employment was legally secular, even if religiously motivated. As per Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, religious beliefs do not influence TDS applicability. The ruling confirms that clergy members working in aided institutions are subject to the same tax rules as any other salaried employees in India. Conclusion This Supreme Court ruling has wide-reaching implications for tax compliance in religious institutions. It underlines the importance of uniform tax enforcement and clarifies that vows of poverty or religious devotion do not exempt individuals from legal financial obligations when income is earned. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to

Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Read More »

Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute.

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Ruling on SECC 2011: Maharashtra’s Plea for OBC Data Denied Due to Inaccurate Caste Information Bombay High Court Sentences Woman to Jail for Contempt of Court Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Allegations Against Judiciary BSF Policeman Unintentionally Crosses International Border, Pakistan Rangers Detain Him Despite Multiple Flag Meetings India-Shuts Attari-Wagah Border as Pakistani Nationals Depart Post-Pahalgam Terror Attack Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Order on CLAT 2025 Merit List Update Amid Question Paper Controversy Supreme Court Dismisses Umar Ansari’s Plea After Mukhtar Ansari’s Custodial Death; Calls for High Court Route Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. MAHI SINHA 02 May 2025 Actor and activist Sushant Singh seeks transfer of his petition challenging the IT Blocking Rules from the Bombay High Court to the Supreme Court of India, raising concerns over online censorship, transparency, and digital rights in India. Introduction: A Legal Challenge to India’s Internet Censorship Framework Renowned actor and social activist Sushant Singh has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking a transfer of his legal petition from the Bombay High Court. His plea challenges the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, commonly known as the IT Blocking Rules. Background: Twitter Suspension and Denial of Transparency Singh’s petition stems from the suspension of his Twitter account (now X) in 2021—twice, and without clear justification. Upon requesting access to the orders leading to the suspension, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) cited Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules, which enforces confidentiality regarding such actions. Frustrated by the lack of transparency, Singh filed a case in the Bombay High Court under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), challenging MeitY’s refusal to disclose blocking orders or provide any hearing. Legal Grounds: Challenging Rule 16 and Section 69A Sushant Singh’s core argument questions the constitutional validity of Rule 16, which mandates secrecy without notifying the content creator or intermediary. He also opposes the use of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to deny RTI requests. According to Singh, these provisions infringe on: Freedom of speech and expression Right to legal remedy Transparency in governance Parallel Case: Software Freedom Law Center v. Union of India A similar petition was filed by the Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC) and is currently pending before the Supreme Court. During a March 2025 hearing, Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih noted that, in principle, users must be given notice if identifiable. This statement aligns closely with Singh’s demand for prior notice and access to blocking orders. Singh’s Transfer Request: Why It Matters Given the overlapping legal issues, Singh has requested the Supreme Court to consolidate his case with the ongoing SFLC matter. A unified verdict could set a precedent for future content moderation and free speech cases in India’s digital space. Similar Case: Journalist Sanjay Sharma’s Plea Adding to the growing scrutiny, journalist Sanjay Sharma has also approached the Supreme Court after his YouTube news show, “4PM”, was blocked over alleged concerns of public order and national security. He demands the immediate restoration of his platform. Conclusion: Growing Pushback Against Digital Censorship The cases filed by Sushant Singh, SFLC, and Sanjay Sharma collectively reflect increasing public resistance to opaque online censorship mechanisms under India’s IT laws. The Supreme Court’s ruling could reshape how online speech and platform access are regulated in the country. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Read More »

Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Ruling on SECC 2011: Maharashtra’s Plea for OBC Data Denied Due to Inaccurate Caste Information Bombay High Court Sentences Woman to Jail for Contempt of Court Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Allegations Against Judiciary BSF Policeman Unintentionally Crosses International Border, Pakistan Rangers Detain Him Despite Multiple Flag Meetings India-Shuts Attari-Wagah Border as Pakistani Nationals Depart Post-Pahalgam Terror Attack Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Order on CLAT 2025 Merit List Update Amid Question Paper Controversy Supreme Court Dismisses Umar Ansari’s Plea After Mukhtar Ansari’s Custodial Death; Calls for High Court Route Legal Challenges in Regulating Artificial Intelligence: Liability, Bias, and Global Frameworks Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack Fallout MAHI SINHA 02 May 2025 The Supreme Court has acknowledged the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir’s plea challenging the High Court’s revocation of a detention order against an alleged overground worker linked to terror groups amid recent unrest in the region. Supreme Court Takes Up Special Leave Petition Filed by J&K UT In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has taken cognizance of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir challenging the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh‘s decision to invalidate the detention of Ghulam Mohammad Waza. The apex court, on May 2, 2025, issued a notice in the case, granting a four-week period for response. Legal Representation and Bench Details Representing the Union Territory, Advocate Parth Awasthi filed the petition. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. Background of the Case Arrest and Allegations The respondent, Ghulam Mohammad Waza, was arrested on February 23, 2023, by the District Magistrate of Bandipora, under suspicion of disturbing public order and national security. Waza was allegedly associated with separatist elements operating under the Tehreek-e-Hurriyat, some of which are designated as terrorist organizations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He is accused of playing a key role in organizing protests, riots, and hartals during the 2016–2018 unrest in Kashmir, following the death of Burhan Wani, a commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen. High Court’s Reasoning for Revocation The High Court revoked the 2024 detention order on the grounds that it relied on similar justifications as a 2022 detention, which had also been set aside. The 2022 order was quashed due to procedural lapses, including the failure to provide the respondent with complete documentation. Fresh Grounds for 2024 Detention However, the current detention was issued after Waza was implicated in a new case involving the alleged supply of explosives to anti-national elements. This case is registered under Section 13 of the UAPA and Section 4B of the Explosive Substances Act. Broader Context: Rising Security Concerns The case comes amid heightened tensions in the region, particularly following the recent Pahalgam terror attack. Security agencies have intensified scrutiny of suspected overground workers believed to be supporting terrorist infrastructure in the Kashmir Valley. Conclusion This case underscores the ongoing legal and security complexities in Jammu and Kashmir, as courts continue to balance civil liberties with national security imperatives. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision may have significant implications for how detention orders under national security laws are scrutinized and upheld. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack Read More »

India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Ruling on SECC 2011: Maharashtra’s Plea for OBC Data Denied Due to Inaccurate Caste Information Bombay High Court Sentences Woman to Jail for Contempt of Court Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Allegations Against Judiciary BSF Policeman Unintentionally Crosses International Border, Pakistan Rangers Detain Him Despite Multiple Flag Meetings India-Shuts Attari-Wagah Border as Pakistani Nationals Depart Post-Pahalgam Terror Attack Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Order on CLAT 2025 Merit List Update Amid Question Paper Controversy Supreme Court Dismisses Umar Ansari’s Plea After Mukhtar Ansari’s Custodial Death; Calls for High Court Route Legal Challenges in Regulating Artificial Intelligence: Liability, Bias, and Global Frameworks Karnataka High Court Dismisses SC/ST Act Complaint Against Infosys Co-Founder Kris Gopalakrishnan and IISc Director India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy MAHI SINHA 02 May 2025 India’s booming economy is driving luxury demand. Discover how Lamborghini is navigating infrastructure challenges, targeting Tier 2 and 3 cities, and embracing hybrid and e-fuel technology in one of the fastest-growing markets in the Asia-Pacific region. Lamborghini Eyes India as Key Growth Market in APAC No economy in the world is expanding as rapidly as India. This unprecedented growth has caught the attention of global luxury brands — including Automobili Lamborghini — which now views India as a priority market in the APAC region. India’s Economic Growth and Lamborghini’s Strategic Interest According to Francesco Scardaoni, Regional Director for Lamborghini Asia Pacific, India’s remarkable GDP growth has positioned it as a promising market. While India’s infrastructure still lags behind more mature markets, its economic momentum is too significant to ignore. “No other economy is expanding as fast as India’s,” says Scardaoni. Despite lower current sales than other APAC regions, Lamborghini India is recording triple-digit annual growth. This has warranted plans for a fourth showroom in the country. Dynamic Regional Demand Across Indian Cities Lamborghini’s expansion strategy in India is fluid, adjusting to rapid shifts in regional wealth and consumer behavior. While six months ago the southeastern region showed the most promise, the picture has changed drastically. Emerging wealth across the country — fueled by new business growth — has shifted the focus to Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities. Infrastructure Challenges and the Rise of Supercar Culture Many Indians agree that supercars are often ill-suited to local infrastructure. Poor urban roads remain a barrier, though improvements in the national highway system and proposed racetracks in Hyderabad, Bangalore, and Pune are promising signs. Scardaoni explains that racetracks play a pivotal role in developing supercar culture. These safe environments allow owners to explore their car’s potential without the risks associated with everyday roads. Programs like Esperienza and the brand’s one-make race series are expanding across India, offering immersive experiences to current and potential owners. Global Tariff Wars and Geopolitical Sensitivities While the US–China trade war hasn’t directly impacted the Indian automotive sector, global market volatility still affects Lamborghini’s regional planning. Scardaoni highlights that free trade policies benefit both companies and customers, and that ongoing India–Pakistan tensions — such as those stemming from events in Kashmir — can influence consumer sentiment. The Future: Hybrids, E-Fuels, and Beyond Lamborghini remains committed to internal combustion engines (ICE) in India for the next decade, especially with the recent launch of the Temerario — its newest mid-engine hybrid. Following the Revuelto and Urus SE Hybrid, the Temerario represents the third step in Lamborghini’s hybrid strategy. Hybridization is seen not as a compromise but as an enhancement — boosting performance and reducing emissions. The company is also investing in synthetic fuels, anticipating regulatory shifts that may allow for sustainable supercar operation in the long term. The Growing Demand for Pre-Owned Lamborghinis Given the long wait times for new Lamborghinis — often up to two years — many Indian buyers are entering the brand through its certified pre-owned program. Scardaoni notes that these vehicles come with warranties and offer an exciting introduction to the brand. Still, with fewer than 100 new car orders submitted annually in India, a new Lamborghini remains the ultimate status symbol. Conclusion: India’s Road to Becoming a Lamborghini Powerhouse India’s rapid economic rise, expanding luxury appetite, and infrastructural improvements make it a compelling market for Lamborghini. With targeted expansion, hybrid innovation, and cultural engagement, Lamborghini is shifting gears to secure its place in India’s dynamic automotive future.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Read More »

COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018

3 Comments / Case law /

Trending Today COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 Legal Framework governing reproductive rights and abortion law The Impact of Contract Law on E-Commerce and Online Transactions Indian Parliament Addressing Judicial Issues in Revenge Porn Cases Triviality section 95 INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF KERALA & Ors Legal Framework governing reproductive rights and abortion law The Role of International Law in Shaping Domestic Constitutions Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Cultural Heritage Preservation COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 13 Feb 2025 CASE SUMMARY: In this landmark judgement the apex court in India recognised the right to die with dignity and held passive euthanasia to be legal in the country. Therefore, passive euthanasia was legalised only with strict regulations which allowed individuals to draft a “living will” to outline their end-of-life care preferences. THE CONCEPT OF EUTHANASIA: Euthanasia is a medical practice aimed at peacefully ending the life of a patient who has been in a vegetative state for an extended period. This compassionate action is taken to spare the patient from prolonged suffering and incapacity beyond recovery. In exceptional circumstances, with the patient’s consent expressed through a living will or by the agreement of their loved ones, medical practitioners and doctors may choose to administer euthanasia. Euthanasia is majorly active or passive. Active euthanasia means intentionally ending a patient’s life by taking direct action, typically by administering a lethal dose of medication. Passive euthanasia means letting the patient die by stopping life support, like ventilators or feeding tubes. In passive euthanasia, the patient’s life is not actively terminated but rather allowed to end naturally due to the withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE: India’s highest court in P. Rathinam v. Union of India[i] (1994) was served with a question that whether the right to die is a fundamental right under Article 21[ii], Section 309 IPC[iii] (which criminalises attempted suicide), was contested. Citing Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra[iv] (1987), the Court ruled Section 309 unconstitutional, stating that fundamental rights include both positive and negative aspects, thereby suggesting that the right to life also includes the right to die. However, in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[v], P. Rathinam was overruled, the Court clarified that fundamental rights are unique and shouldn’t be interpreted in the same way. Thus, the right to life does not include the right to die, particularly because suicide requires a deliberate act by the person. The Court differentiated between the “right to die” and the “right to die with dignity,” acknowledging the natural dying process for terminally ill or vegetative state patients. In Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India[vi] (2011), the Court addressed euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug, who was in a persistent vegetative state after a severe assault. The Court ruled that passive euthanasia could be allowed under certain conditions, based on the patient’s consent or a close friend’s judgment, with approval from the High Court and a medical board’s examination. This ruling would stand until Parliament passed relevant legislation. In the 2018 case[vii], A writ petition was submitted asking the court to recognise that the ‘right to live with dignity’ under Article 21 also encompasses the ‘right to die with dignity.’ This would allow individuals in a vegetative state or those who are terminally ill to create a living will or Advance Medical Directive. The petition was first examined by a 3-judge Bench but was later referred to a Constitution Bench because of conflicting legal precedents regarding the right to die. ISSUES RAISED AND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED: The matters addressed in this case pertain to the distinction between active and passive euthanasia, the recognition of the right to die as a fundamental entitlement alongside the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and whether individuals can stipulate passive euthanasia in their living wills under exceptional circumstances. Additionally, has the Law Commission of India provided any recommendations concerning the utilisation of euthanasia to mitigate patient distress? Furthermore, is there any provision affording individuals the authority to cease medical treatment or withdraw life-sustaining equipment, thereby leading to death? In this case the petitioner(s) contended that people should have the right to make their own life decisions, including end-of-life choices, based on their personal autonomy, which is linked to their right to privacy and freedom. They argued that using advanced medical treatments to extend the lives of patients in a vegetative state increased their suffering and violated their autonomy and dignity. They also emphasized that the rights to live and die with dignity are closely related.pointing to the common law principle that lets people refuse medical treatment they don’t want. On the other hand, the respondent, represented by the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs, argued against regulating euthanasia, saying it’s too specific to be governed by uniform laws. They claimed that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to live with dignity, covering necessities like food and medical care, but does not include the right to die with dignity. JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE: In the Gian Kaur, the apex Court said that the right to a respectful death is protected by the Constitution, but they made it clear that this decision didn’t include passive euthanasia. A distinction was drawn between the active euthanasia, which involves an action to end life, and passive euthanasia, which entails removing life support to alleviate suffering. The Court said that the need for a law to make passive euthanasia legal, as decided in the Aruna Shanbaug case, was wrong. Regarding living wills, the Court recognised the adoption of advance medical directives in India, viewing it as a step to safeguard individual autonomy and self-determination. It explored the relationship between autonomy, liberty, and privacy, as established in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case[viii]. The Court said that privacy rights include decisions about death. They linked these rights to the fundamental rights to life and personal freedom in Article 21 of the Constitution. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in India

COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote