sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Sada Law

Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Stay of BJP Minister Vijay Shah in Colonel Sofiya Qureshi Case, Ends MP High Court Proceedings

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Stay of BJP Minister Vijay Shah in Colonel Sofiya Qureshi Case, Ends MP High Court Proceedings Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JURIDICA SOLUTIO LLP, DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JUNIOR ADVOCATE AT SAHALNA ASSOCIATE JOB OPPORTUNITY AT EVARA LEGAL LLP JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF ADITYA BHARAT MANUBARWALA JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF MS. SUPRIYA JUNEJA AND MR. ADITYA SINGLA Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Stay of BJP Minister Vijay Shah in Colonel Sofiya Qureshi Case, Ends MP High Court Proceedings PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 30 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India has upheld the arrest stay of BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah in the controversy involving his derogatory remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, ending MP High Court proceedings and instructing an SIT-led investigation to continue. Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Stay of BJP Minister Vijay Shah In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India maintained its temporary stay on the arrest of BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah. The case relates to derogatory comments made by Shah, where he allegedly called Colonel Sofiya Qureshi a “sister of terrorists.” MP High Court Proceedings Halted The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to cease ongoing proceedings, noting that the apex court had already taken cognizance of the matter. This move effectively ends dual proceedings and centralizes the legal action at the national level. Special Investigation Team Formed to Probe Case During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising three senior officers had been formed as per the earlier directives. The SIT has begun its inquiry and filed a status report citing an on-site investigation conducted on May 21. Investigation in Progress: SIT Seizes Devices and Records Statements The SIT has already collected substantial evidence, including the seizure of mobile phones and electronic devices. Statements from key witnesses were also recorded. Given that the investigation is still in its initial stages, the court granted more time for further progress. Bench Reviews Petitions Filed by Vijay Shah Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta reviewed two petitions filed by Vijay Shah. One challenged the suo motu order of the MP High Court directing an FIR against him, while the other contested the High Court’s intent to monitor the investigation directly. Supreme Court Rejects Shah’s Public Apology The Court issued a strong condemnation of Shah’s comments, calling them “filthy, crass, and shameful.” The bench also dismissed Shah’s public apology as insincere, pointing out that the apology video lacked genuine remorse or acknowledgment of public outrage. Justice Surya Kant urged Shah to reflect on his actions and seek meaningful redemption. Cooperation Mandated for Arrest Stay to Continue The court made it clear that the arrest stay is conditional upon full cooperation by Shah with the ongoing investigation. While the bench refrained from monitoring the case, it asked for periodic updates from the SIT to ensure procedural integrity. Conclusion: Legal Scrutiny Continues Amid Political Turmoil This case underscores the growing scrutiny of public figures and the consequences of inflammatory speech in India’s political landscape. With the Supreme Court stepping in to ensure a fair and impartial investigation, the focus now shifts to the integrity and findings of the SIT probe. As the legal process unfolds, the case remains a crucial marker in the conversation about political accountability and responsible discourse. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Stay of BJP Minister Vijay Shah in Colonel Sofiya Qureshi Case, Ends MP High Court Proceedings Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Stay of BJP Minister Vijay Shah in Colonel Sofiya Qureshi Case, Ends MP High Court Proceedings Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Stay of BJP Minister Vijay Shah in Colonel Sofiya Qureshi Case, Ends MP High Court Proceedings Read More »

Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JURIDICA SOLUTIO LLP, DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JUNIOR ADVOCATE AT SAHALNA ASSOCIATE JOB OPPORTUNITY AT EVARA LEGAL LLP JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF ADITYA BHARAT MANUBARWALA JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF MS. SUPRIYA JUNEJA AND MR. ADITYA SINGLA Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 30 May 2025 The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to filmmaker Akhil Marar over alleged seditious remarks regarding the Pahalgam incident and India-Pakistan border truce. Read more on the legal developments and constitutional insights. Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks Updated by Prabhat Kumar Biltoria on 29 May 2025 In a high-profile legal development, the Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to filmmaker Akhil Marar, following a case filed against him for alleged seditious remarks related to the Pahalgam incident and the India-Pakistan border truce. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas Presides Over the Bail Hearing The case was heard by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who ordered Akhil Marar to surrender his mobile phone and appear before the investigating officer on June 10 at 10 a.m. In the event of an arrest, the court directed that Marar should be released on bond. Facebook Video at the Center of Controversy The complaint stems from a Facebook video allegedly uploaded by Marar, which was considered a threat to India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Kottarakkara police registered the case under Section 152 of the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). Marar stated that the video was taken down within an hour of uploading after realizing it might be misinterpreted. He denied all allegations, asserting that they were politically motivated and baseless. Prosecution Seeks Gadget Seizure and Custodial Interrogation Despite Marar’s defense, the prosecution argued that confiscating the device and conducting an in-custody interrogation were necessary for proper investigation. They opposed the anticipatory bail plea, citing the seriousness of the charges. Freedom of Speech Upheld by the Court After thoroughly reviewing the case, the court highlighted that freedom of speech and expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The court further emphasized that Article 19(2) allows for only reasonable restrictions. Since Marar’s post did not include any explicit call for violence or secession, the court found no basis for the charges under sedition. This ruling reflects a careful balance between national security concerns and civil liberties. Conclusion This case brings renewed focus on the legal interpretation of seditious content in the digital era and the constitutional safeguards of free expression in India. As the investigation continues, Akhil Marar’s legal battle is likely to remain under public and media scrutiny. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks Read More »

Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JURIDICA SOLUTIO LLP, DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JUNIOR ADVOCATE AT SAHALNA ASSOCIATE JOB OPPORTUNITY AT EVARA LEGAL LLP JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF ADITYA BHARAT MANUBARWALA JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF MS. SUPRIYA JUNEJA AND MR. ADITYA SINGLA Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KKR Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 30 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India has ruled against a blanket ban on disclosing witness statements under the UAPA, emphasizing the need for individualized threat assessments to uphold the accused’s right to a fair trial. Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Under UAPA In a landmark judgment dated 29 May 2024, the Supreme Court of India ruled that courts cannot impose a blanket prohibition on the disclosure of witness statements in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) without a personalized assessment of threat to each witness. Personalized Judicial Evaluation Is Mandatory The Court clarified that any restriction on the defence’s access to prosecution witness statements must be supported by a well-reasoned judicial order. Such an order should demonstrate careful analysis of whether a specific witness’s life or safety is at risk, ensuring that protective measures are individualized and justified. High Court and Special Court’s Blanket Ban Overturned Initially, a Special Court barred disclosure of witness statements based on concerns raised by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), citing Sections 44 of UAPA and 17 of the NIA Act, 2008. This blanket ban was later upheld by the High Court, even after the examination-in-chief of the witnesses. However, the Supreme Court bench—comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan—allowed the appeal, stressing that a universal restriction is unconstitutional without a case-by-case evaluation. Appellant’s Argument: No Threat Assessment, No Justification The Appellant, facing charges under UAPA for alleged involvement in terrorist activities, argued that while the law permits protective measures, these must be grounded in concrete threat perceptions per individual. Without any specific evidence of threat or protective steps for each of the 15 witnesses examined under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the blanket gag order violated the accused’s right to a fair trial. Right to Fair Trial and Cross-Examination Must Be Preserved Justice Oka emphasized that the right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to a fair trial. Courts cannot withhold statements mechanically—even when a threat is recorded—without providing a brief but reasoned justification for each case. Omnibus Applications by Prosecutors Not Acceptable The Supreme Court further warned that prosecutors must not file omnibus applications seeking protection for all witnesses under Section 44(2) of UAPA or Section 17(2) of the NIA Act. Applications must include specific averments for each witness, ensuring strict adherence to procedural fairness and transparency. Final Judgment and Directive to NIA The Supreme Court annulled the previous orders by the Special Court and the High Court. It directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to submit a fresh application within eight weeks, ensuring that individual threat assessments are presented for proper judicial scrutiny. This judgment reinforces the balance between national security and constitutional rights, affirming that witness protection must not override the right to a fair and transparent trial. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA Read More »

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KKR INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LEGAL SAVVY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME BY UNITED UNIVERSITY Apple Shifts iPhone Production to India as Exports to US Surge 76% in April 2025 India’s Victory in Operation Sindoor Undermined by Diplomatic Delay: Brahma Chellaney LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INDUSLAW JOB OPPORTUNITY AT TRIVEDI & PARASHAR JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LITIGATION WING OF THE INDIAN ARMY Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 30 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India has declined to reconsider the ₹229-crore Gateway of India jetty project, leaving the matter to the Bombay High Court. The project, facing opposition from local residents, continues amid debate over heritage preservation and urban infrastructure development. Supreme Court Declines to Reconsider ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project On May 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a plea challenging the construction of a ₹229-crore passenger jetty near Gateway of India, Mumbai. The bench, comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, noted that the matter is already being addressed by the Bombay High Court and urged a swift resolution before the monsoon season ends. Opposition Cites Heritage and Public Consultation Concerns The petition was filed by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association, alongside individual petitioners, who expressed concerns about the potential damage to Mumbai’s iconic heritage seafront. They argued that the project was implemented without public consultation and accused authorities of prioritizing elite interests by including VIP lounges and parking for 150 vehicles. It was also alleged that the jetty would be used for private ferries and celebrity yachts. “Not In My Backyard” Syndrome Cited by the Court The Supreme Court referenced the “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) syndrome—a common reaction where individuals oppose infrastructure projects that affect them personally, despite broader public benefit. CJI BR Gavai highlighted similar cases of resistance to civic development, including urban transit and sewage treatment facilities, and underscored the necessity of developing coastal infrastructure. Arguments For and Against the Jetty Project Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that the jetty primarily serves a privileged segment of society and lacks transparency. He claimed that the project offers private docking access for those wishing to travel to Alibaug for leisure. Countering these claims, Aishwarya Bhati, the Additional Solicitor General representing the Maharashtra Government, emphasized that the jetty is a public infrastructure project aimed at improving daily commute options for citizens. She categorically dismissed allegations of exclusivity. Bombay High Court to Decide Before Monsoon Ends Although the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, it acknowledged the pending hearing in the Bombay High Court scheduled for June 16. The High Court had earlier declined to halt the piling work for the jetty and is now expected to deliver a verdict before the monsoon concludes. Conclusion: Balancing Urban Growth with Heritage Preservation The ₹229-crore Gateway of India jetty project highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing urban infrastructure development with the preservation of historic and cultural landmarks. While the project promises to improve connectivity and benefit daily commuters, it has sparked concern among local residents and heritage advocates. As the legal proceedings continue in the Bombay High Court, the case serves as a critical example of how civic planning must consider both public utility and community impact. The outcome may shape future approaches to coastal development projects across Mumbai and beyond. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Apple Shifts iPhone Production to India as Exports to US Surge 76% in April 2025 Apple Shifts iPhone Production to India as Exports to US Surge 76% in April 2025 Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review Read More »

Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KKR INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LEGAL SAVVY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME BY UNITED UNIVERSITY Apple Shifts iPhone Production to India as Exports to US Surge 76% in April 2025 India’s Victory in Operation Sindoor Undermined by Diplomatic Delay: Brahma Chellaney LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INDUSLAW JOB OPPORTUNITY AT TRIVEDI & PARASHAR JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LITIGATION WING OF THE INDIAN ARMY LETTER TO NATURE WRITING CONTEST 2025 ON WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY BY UDAAN YOUTH CLUB Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 30 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India has directed the Karnataka Government to uphold the rights of Sri Anjaneya Temple head priest Vidyadas Babaji following the Karnataka High Court‘s interim order. Read more about this legal battle involving temple management and religious rights. Supreme Court Protects Temple Priest’s Rights in Karnataka In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India instructed the Karnataka government not to dismiss head priest Vidyadas Babaji from his position at the historic Sri Anjaneya Temple in Koppal. This directive enforces an interim order issued by the Karnataka High Court in 2023, which allowed the priest to reside and perform religious duties in a single room at the temple premises. High Court’s 2023 Interim Order Still in Effect Justice Surya Kant emphasized the importance of following the High Court’s directive. He warned that any disobedience or non-compliance would be treated with utmost seriousness. The court issued a formal notice reinforcing the continuation of the priest’s duties and residence until a final decision on the writ petition is made. Historical Background and Legal Dispute Representing the petitioner, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain informed the court that Babaji’s religious lineage, or Sampradaya, had been serving at the temple for over 120 years. However, in 2018, the temple was allegedly taken over by district authorities, and the then-District Collector ordered Babaji’s removal from the premises. This action prompted a writ petition, which led to the 2023 High Court ruling. The order stated that no “precipitative or coercive actions” should be taken against the petitioner regarding his role or residence in the temple. It also made clear that this was a temporary arrangement pending the case’s outcome. Allegations of Harassment and Coercion Despite the court’s directive, Babaji alleged that in March 2025, the authorities attempted to replace him with another priest. He reported being verbally threatened and told to “mind his own business,” with officials declaring that temple duties would be carried out solely by the newly appointed individual. More troubling are allegations of harassment. Babaji claims that the authorities cut off his electricity and even tried to falsely implicate him by planting cannabis (locally referred to as ghanja) through intermediaries. These acts were reportedly intended to intimidate him into vacating the premises, in direct violation of the High Court’s interim protection. Contempt Petition Dismissed by High Court Babaji filed a contempt petition against the authorities, but it was dismissed by a High Court order on April 9, citing a lack of prima facie evidence. The court noted that no official police complaint had been lodged by the petitioner. Disheartened by this decision, Babaji escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. Final Thoughts This legal struggle shines a spotlight on religious rights, temple management disputes, and the responsibilities of state authorities. As the case proceeds, the judiciary’s role in protecting traditional religious practices and individuals like Vidyadas Babaji remains critical. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Apple Shifts iPhone Production to India as Exports to US Surge 76% in April 2025 Apple Shifts iPhone Production to India as Exports to US Surge 76% in April 2025 Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments India’s Victory in Operation Sindoor Undermined by Diplomatic Delay: Brahma Chellaney India’s Victory in Operation Sindoor Undermined by Diplomatic Delay: Brahma Chellaney Sada Law • May 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Stops Karnataka Government from Removing Sri Anjaneya Temple Head Priest Read More »

Apple Shifts iPhone Production to India as Exports to US Surge 76% in April 2025

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Apple Shifts iPhone Production to India as Exports to US Surge 76% in April 2025 India’s Victory in Operation Sindoor Undermined by Diplomatic Delay: Brahma Chellaney LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INDUSLAW JOB OPPORTUNITY AT TRIVEDI & PARASHAR JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LITIGATION WING OF THE INDIAN ARMY LETTER TO NATURE WRITING CONTEST 2025 ON WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY BY UDAAN YOUTH CLUB CALL FOR CHAPTERS BY CNLU LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT EVARA LEGAL LLP LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ASHLAR LAW JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KMJ LEGAL Apple Shifts iPhone Production to India as Exports to US Surge 76% in April 2025 Mahi Sinha 30 May 2025 Apple’s iPhone exports from India to the US surged 76% in April 2025, surpassing China’s shipments for the first time. Discover how Apple is shifting its production strategy amid trade tensions and growing demand. Introduction: A Major Shift in Apple’s Global Supply Chain Apple Inc. is rapidly increasing iPhone production in India, signaling a major shift in its global supply chain. In the first four months of 2025, Apple shipped 11.5 million iPhones from India to the United States, while exports from China declined sharply. This marks a pivotal change in Apple’s manufacturing and export strategy. India Overtakes China in iPhone Exports to the US Record iPhone Shipments from India In April 2025 alone, iPhone shipments from India to the US soared by 76% year-over-year, reaching over 3.3 million units, according to research firm Omdia. During the same period, China’s iPhone exports fell by 76%, dropping to 900,000 units. January–April Export Comparison Between January and April 2025: India exported 11.5 million iPhones to the US China exported 13.2 million iPhones While China still leads year-to-date, India is quickly catching up and even surpassed China in April’s monthly figures. Apple’s Investment in India Paying Off COVID-19 Sparked the Shift Apple began investing in India’s manufacturing infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic. These efforts are now showing results, with a strong supply chain supporting high-volume exports. Tariffs Accelerating the Transition The shift may have been influenced by US trade policies. Former President Donald Trump had proposed “reciprocal tariffs” of 25% on non-US iPhone imports. Though iPhones were later excluded from this tariff on April 11, Apple had already accelerated shipments in March, with 4.4 million units exported from India—possibly as a precautionary measure. iPhones Made in India: A New Era Begins Tim Cook Confirms India’s Central Role In early May, Apple CEO Tim Cook confirmed that most iPhones sold in the US will be made in India going forward. This move not only reduces Apple’s dependence on China but also helps avoid the steep 30% tariff on Chinese-made iPhones, compared to 10% from India. iPhone 16 Pro: India Joins the Premium League India has started manufacturing and exporting high-end models like the iPhone 16 Pro, a milestone in its capability to handle complex production tasks. However, experts caution that India’s full production ramp-up may not meet total US demand until at least 2026. Challenges and Geopolitical Tensions China Pushes Back Reports suggest that China is restricting India’s access to advanced manufacturing equipment and skilled labor, possibly to slow its progress in iPhone production. US Pressure to Bring Manufacturing Home Trump has voiced that all iPhones should be made in the US, not in India or elsewhere, and hinted at a 25% import tariff on all iPhones made abroad. However, analysts believe this is unlikely to materialize at scale. Future Outlook: Apple’s India Strategy is Here to Stay Despite challenges from both China and the US, experts like Dan Ives from Wedbush Securities believe that India will remain Apple’s long-term manufacturing hub. He notes that producing iPhones in the US is unrealistic, and Apple will likely continue to deepen its presence in India. Conclusion: India Emerges as Apple’s iPhone Production Powerhouse Apple’s strategic shift from China to India reflects its long-term vision to diversify its manufacturing base. As geopolitical tensions persist and demand in the US grows, India is well-positioned to become Apple’s most important iPhone production hub. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Apple Shifts iPhone Production to India as Exports to US Surge 76% in April 2025 Read More »

India’s Victory in Operation Sindoor Undermined by Diplomatic Delay: Brahma Chellaney

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today India’s Victory in Operation Sindoor Undermined by Diplomatic Delay: Brahma Chellaney LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT INDUSLAW JOB OPPORTUNITY AT TRIVEDI & PARASHAR JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LITIGATION WING OF THE INDIAN ARMY LETTER TO NATURE WRITING CONTEST 2025 ON WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY BY UDAAN YOUTH CLUB CALL FOR CHAPTERS BY CNLU LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT EVARA LEGAL LLP LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ASHLAR LAW JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KMJ LEGAL India to Introduce Digital Address IDs with DIGIPIN for Precise Location Mapping India’s Victory in Operation Sindoor Undermined by Diplomatic Delay: Brahma Chellaney Mahi Sinha 30 May 2025 India won the military battle in Operation Sindoor against Pakistan, but failed to shape the global narrative, warns geostrategic expert Brahma Chellaney. Read how delayed diplomacy cost India valuable strategic ground. India’s Military Triumph in Operation Sindoor On May 7, 2025, India launched Operation Sindoor in response to the terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22. With pinpoint precision, Indian forces struck nine militant camps across the border, eliminating around 100 terrorists. The mission was designed to avoid full-scale war while targeting critical Pakistani military infrastructure, including airbases, radar sites, and command centers. According to Indian officials, these airstrikes exposed the weaknesses of Pakistan’s Chinese-made air defense systems and showcased India’s advanced military capabilities, using a limited number of drones and missiles to strike high-value targets. Brahma Chellaney: “India Won the War, But Lost the Narrative” Despite the military success, renowned geostrategic analyst Brahma Chellaney believes India failed on the diplomatic front. In his assessment, India was too slow in shaping the global narrative, which allowed misinformation to take root internationally. “India’s sluggish response time cost it diplomatic capital. They won the war but lost the story,” said Chellaney. He criticized India’s failure to effectively highlight Pakistan’s role in cross-border terrorism and convert a short-term tactical win into a strategic advantage. The Global Diplomatic Response and Missed Opportunities After Pakistan’s retaliatory attempts on May 8, 9, and 10, both nations agreed to a ceasefire on May 10, as announced by Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri. However, this truce came unexpectedly and lacked proper narrative framing from India’s side. Chellaney highlighted several key issues: Delayed response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim of mediation. Lack of proactive international engagement during and immediately after the conflict. Failure to reinforce the symbolism of the operation, which was framed as a tribute by Indian women avenging their fallen husbands. Diplomatic Damage Control: Too Little, Too Late? In a bid to recover lost ground, India dispatched seven all-party delegations to foreign capitals, led by leaders like: Shashi Tharoor (Congress) Ravi Shankar Prasad (BJP) Kanimozhi (DMK) Supriya Sule (NCP) Shrikant Shinde (Shiv Sena) Baijayant Panda (BJP) Sanjay Kumar Jha (JDU) These delegations aimed to clarify India’s objectives in Operation Sindoor and reinforce the country’s stance against state-sponsored terrorism. “Sending delegations now is like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted,” said Chellaney. Key Takeaways for India’s Future Strategic Positioning Quick, coordinated messaging is crucial in modern warfare—winning the narrative is as vital as winning battles. Public diplomacy and media strategy should be integrated into military operations. India must prioritize international opinion shaping alongside domestic narrative control. Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for India’s Global Strategy Operation Sindoor stands as a military success but a diplomatic lesson. While India displayed remarkable precision and strength in its military strikes, its failure to manage global perception highlights the urgent need for a cohesive foreign policy strategy. As Brahma Chellaney emphasized, “India snatched defeat from the jaws of victory” not on the battlefield, but on the international stage. For India to secure long-term strategic objectives, timely and assertive diplomacy must become a central pillar of its defense doctrine. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

India’s Victory in Operation Sindoor Undermined by Diplomatic Delay: Brahma Chellaney Read More »

India to Introduce Digital Address IDs with DIGIPIN for Precise Location Mapping

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today India to Introduce Digital Address IDs with DIGIPIN for Precise Location Mapping Why Muhammad Yunus’ June 2026 Election Plan Faces Backlash from BNP and Raises National Concerns Supreme Court Limits SIT Probe to FIRs in Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case, Warns Against Overreach Supreme Court Finds DDA Officials in Contempt for Illegal Tree Felling in Delhi Ridge Road Project Supreme Court Upholds 20-Year Minimum Sentence Under POCSO for Aggravated Sexual Assault LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT STANZA LIVING JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ESYA CENTRE LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SBICAP SECURITIES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NUMEN LAW OFFICE INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT G D BANSAL & ASSOCIATES India to Introduce Digital Address IDs with DIGIPIN for Precise Location Mapping Mahi Sinha 29 May 2025 India is gearing up for a major digital transformation by introducing unique digital IDs for every address. Following the success of Aadhaar for identity and UPI for payments, this next step could redefine how locations are identified and accessed across the country. What Is the Digital Address ID Initiative? The Indian government is developing a nationwide Digital Address ID system as part of its Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) plan. This initiative aims to assign each home, business, or location a distinct digital identity—making address verification faster, more accurate, and secure. Why Is India Introducing Digital Addresses Now? The Challenge of Ambiguous Addresses India currently lacks a standardized system for managing address data. Many addresses are incomplete, vague, or rely on nearby landmarks. This creates significant issues for: E-commerce and courier services Food delivery platforms Government services and emergency response According to research, inadequate address systems cost India $10–14 billion annually, or about 0.5% of its GDP. How Will the Digital Address System Work? A Secure, Consent-Based Framework The new digital address framework will: Offer standardized address formats Allow individuals to share address data securely and only with consent Be integrated into digital platforms for improved accuracy Government Oversight and Implementation Timeline The Department of Posts is leading development, with oversight from the Prime Minister’s Office. A draft policy will be released for public comment within weeks, and a finalized version is expected by the end of the year. A new regulatory authority may also be introduced via a bill in Parliament‘s winter session. Introducing DIGIPIN: India’s Digital Postal Index Number What is DIGIPIN? A key component of this initiative is DIGIPIN—a 10-character alphanumeric code based on the exact geographic coordinates of a location. Unlike traditional PIN codes, DIGIPIN provides pinpoint accuracy, even in: Rural areas and remote villages Slums and informal settlements Forested or mountainous regions With DIGIPIN, even homes in hard-to-reach places will receive a unique digital address, making services like delivery and emergency response significantly more efficient. What’s Next for India’s Digital Address Revolution? A draft version of the digital address policy will soon be released for public feedback. Once implemented, this system could become as essential as Aadhaar or UPI, revolutionizing how people in India share, verify, and use location data. Key Benefits of India’s Digital Address ID System: Improved delivery and service access Enhanced address data privacy and control Standardization across sectors Support for digital governance and smart cities Conclusion The launch of India’s digital address IDs and DIGIPIN marks a major step forward in modernizing the country’s infrastructure. With strong backing from the government and growing demand from industries, this initiative is set to reshape how India navigates and utilizes address data in the digital age. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

India to Introduce Digital Address IDs with DIGIPIN for Precise Location Mapping Read More »

Why Muhammad Yunus’ June 2026 Election Plan Faces Backlash from BNP and Raises National Concerns

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Why Muhammad Yunus’ June 2026 Election Plan Faces Backlash from BNP and Raises National Concerns Supreme Court Limits SIT Probe to FIRs in Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case, Warns Against Overreach Supreme Court Finds DDA Officials in Contempt for Illegal Tree Felling in Delhi Ridge Road Project Supreme Court Upholds 20-Year Minimum Sentence Under POCSO for Aggravated Sexual Assault LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT STANZA LIVING JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ESYA CENTRE LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SBICAP SECURITIES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NUMEN LAW OFFICE INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT G D BANSAL & ASSOCIATES JOB OPPORTUNITY AT S&T LAW Why Muhammad Yunus’ June 2026 Election Plan Faces Backlash from BNP and Raises National Concerns Mahi Sinha 29 May 2025 Muhammad Yunus‘ insistence on holding Bangladesh’s general elections in June 2026 has triggered sharp criticism and mistrust from the BNP and other political groups. Discover why the proposed election timeline raises logistical, political, and democratic concerns. Introduction: Mounting Tension Over Election Timing A heated debate is unfolding in Bangladesh as interim leader Muhammad Yunus pushes for general elections by June 2026. This timeline is being challenged by major opposition parties—especially the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)—who argue that elections must be held by December 2025 to ensure fairness and democratic credibility. BNP Calls Yunus’ Plan a Political Delay Tactic The BNP has firmly rejected the June 2026 election schedule, labeling it unrealistic and strategically misleading. According to party leaders, if elections aren’t held by December 2025, there’s a high chance they will be pushed back further—possibly to late 2026—thereby extending the life of the unelected interim government. “We believe December is the most suitable time for elections. Holding polls in mid-2026 is logistically unfeasible,” said Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain, a senior BNP leader. (No Wikipedia page available for Hossain) Logistical and Seasonal Barriers to Mid-2026 Elections Bangladesh’s climate and academic calendar pose major challenges for conducting elections in the first half of 2026. These include: Monsoon and Cyclone Seasons From May to September, the country experiences monsoon rains, Kalbaishakhi storms, and frequent tropical cyclones, especially in coastal regions—making it difficult to conduct safe, accessible, and fair elections. Ramadan, Eid, and Public Exams Ramadan, followed by Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha (Bakrid), overlaps with the proposed timeline. Additionally, major national exams like the SSC and HSC run from February to April, which limits the availability of educators for election duties. Jatiya Party Also Demands a Clear Electoral Roadmap The Jatiya Party, once allied with Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League, has joined the call for a transparent and structured election roadmap. Party leader Masroor Mawla warned that continued ambiguity over elections is damaging investor confidence and stalling economic recovery. (No Wikipedia page available for Mawla) “No new investments will come into Bangladesh without a declared election date. Even existing investors are feeling insecure,” said Mawla. Military’s Stand: Elections Must Be Held by December 2025 Adding to the political pressure, Army Chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman has urged Yunus to ensure elections by December 2025, emphasizing that only an elected government should determine the country’s future. (No Wikipedia page available for Zaman) His warning signals strong institutional concerns over prolonged interim rule and the erosion of democratic norms. Growing Distrust in the Interim Government The BNP accuses the Yunus-led interim government of trying to manipulate the election timeline to remain in power. The party has called for the removal of controversial advisers and more transparency in election planning. “We expected clarity and fairness, but all we see is a lack of direction and rising public distrust,” said Hossain. Conclusion: What’s at Stake for Bangladesh The proposed June 2026 election schedule by Muhammad Yunus has not only divided political opinion but also highlighted the logistical, social, and democratic risks of delaying national polls. With major political parties, the military, and civil society calling for elections by December 2025, the pressure is mounting on the interim administration to revisit its timeline and restore public trust in the democratic process. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Why Muhammad Yunus’ June 2026 Election Plan Faces Backlash from BNP and Raises National Concerns Read More »

Supreme Court Limits SIT Probe to FIRs in Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case, Warns Against Overreach

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today India to Introduce Digital Address IDs with DIGIPIN for Precise Location Mapping Why Muhammad Yunus’ June 2026 Election Plan Faces Backlash from BNP and Raises National Concerns Supreme Court Limits SIT Probe to FIRs in Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case, Warns Against Overreach Supreme Court Finds DDA Officials in Contempt for Illegal Tree Felling in Delhi Ridge Road Project Supreme Court Upholds 20-Year Minimum Sentence Under POCSO for Aggravated Sexual Assault LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT STANZA LIVING JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ESYA CENTRE LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SBICAP SECURITIES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NUMEN LAW OFFICE INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT G D BANSAL & ASSOCIATES Supreme Court Limits SIT Probe to FIRs in Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case, Warns Against Overreach PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 29 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India has directed the SIT investigating Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad to limit its probe strictly to two FIRs, cautioning against scope expansion. Learn what the bench said and how the legal battle unfolds. Supreme Court Directs SIT to Stay Within FIR Limits in Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case In a key development on May 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of India restricted the scope of the investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) into Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s case. The case concerns social media posts made by the Ashoka University professor regarding the controversial ‘Operation Sindoor’. The court stated unequivocally that the investigation must be confined solely to the two FIRs already filed. The SIT’s report, according to the bench, should be submitted directly to the Supreme Court before reaching any lower jurisdiction. Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta Emphasize Probe Boundaries The directive came from a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta. They asserted:“We mandate that the SIT’s investigation be limited to the contents of the two FIRs involved in these proceedings. The interim protection is to continue until further notice.” Kapil Sibal Raises Concern Over Overreach Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal voiced concern that the SIT, established by the State of Haryana, might exceed its legal limits. He highlighted the attempt to gain access to Mahmudabad’s digital devices, suggesting it could lead to an unjustified expansion of the investigation. Justice Kant responded sharply:“Both FIRs are on record. Why are devices necessary? Avoid attempting to broaden the scope. Don’t go left and right.”The court directed the Additional Advocate General of Haryana to ensure that the probe stays within its intended boundaries. Clarification on Interim Bail and Freedom of Expression As Sibal requested relaxation of conditions tied to Mahmudabad’s interim bail, Justice Kant clarified that the restrictions were merely part of a “cooling-off” period. He stressed that Mahmudabad is free to publish on any topic, except the matter under current litigation:“There are no restrictions on his right to speak. We do not desire a parallel media trial.” National Human Rights Commission’s Involvement The bench also questioned the Haryana government regarding the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)’s observations on the FIR registration process.“You tell us about that as well,” the bench directed the Haryana AAG, underlining the growing national attention on the fairness of the legal process. Conclusion: Upholding Legal Boundaries and Protecting Rights The Supreme Court’s firm stance in the case of Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad sends a clear message about the importance of judicial oversight and the protection of constitutional rights. By limiting the SIT’s probe to the two registered FIRs, the Court aims to prevent investigative overreach while safeguarding freedom of speech and due process. The case continues to highlight the delicate balance between state authority and individual liberties in India’s evolving legal landscape. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases India to Introduce Digital Address IDs with DIGIPIN for Precise Location Mapping India to Introduce Digital Address IDs with DIGIPIN for Precise Location Mapping Sada Law • May 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Why Muhammad Yunus’ June 2026 Election Plan Faces Backlash from BNP and Raises National Concerns Why Muhammad Yunus’ June 2026 Election Plan Faces Backlash from BNP and Raises National Concerns Sada Law • May 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Limits SIT Probe to FIRs in Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case, Warns Against Overreach Supreme Court Limits SIT Probe to FIRs in Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case, Warns Against Overreach Sada Law • May 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Limits SIT Probe to FIRs in Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case, Warns Against Overreach Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote