sadalawpublications.com

Sada Law

Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims

Trending Today Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 22 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India directs the Central Government to fully implement the Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learn about the scheme, deadlines, and key legal developments. Central Government Ordered to Enforce the 2025 Cashless Treatment Scheme In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Central Government to ensure the full implementation of the Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims, 2025, which came into effect on May 5, 2025. The scheme, introduced under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, mandates free and immediate medical care to accident victims during the crucial “golden hour” following an accident. Supreme Court Sets Deadline for Affidavit Submission A bench led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan instructed the government to file an affidavit by August 2025, detailing the scheme’s execution and publicity measures. “We require the Central Government to provide an affidavit outlining the scheme’s execution, including the number of beneficiaries who received cashless treatment,” the bench stated. Delay in Implementation Criticized Despite Section 162 being in force since April 1, 2022, the Court previously criticized the government for its delay in enforcing the law. The current legal hearing was prompted by concerns over the government’s sluggish implementation. Scheme Details: Free Treatment for Seven Days Post-Accident The scheme allows accident victims to avail cashless treatment for up to ₹1.5 lakhs for a maximum of seven days from the date of the accident. Treatment is to begin immediately upon arrival at any approved hospital or healthcare facility. Court Issues Strong Remarks on Public Health Infrastructure On April 28, 2025, during a hearing, the Secretary of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) appeared via video conference to explain the delay. Justice Oka expressed concern, questioning why massive infrastructure projects like highways were being constructed without basic healthcare provisions. He emphasized that the lack of immediate treatment on highways was resulting in preventable deaths. General Insurance Council’s Concerns and Court’s Response The Court was informed that the scheme had faced delays due to objections from the General Insurance Council (GIC). The justices warned that if GIC failed to cooperate, an alternative implementing agency would be appointed. The Secretary assured compliance with the directive. Key Takeaway for Citizens and Stakeholders With the Cashless Treatment Scheme now in effect, all road users and healthcare providers should stay informed about their rights and responsibilities. The Central Government is expected to launch a widespread awareness campaign to educate the public on the scheme’s benefits and procedures. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s directive marks a critical step toward strengthening emergency medical care for road accident victims in India. With the Cashless Treatment Scheme now active, timely government action and public awareness are essential to saving lives and ensuring justice through effective healthcare delivery. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Sada Law • May 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Sada Law • May 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Sada Law • May 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Read More »

Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate

Trending Today Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 22 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India has stayed criminal defamation proceedings against India Today Chairman Aroon Purie, citing violations of journalistic freedom during a televised debate on political developments in Bihar. Supreme Court Halts Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate In a major legal development, the Supreme Court of India has stayed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Aroon Purie, Chairman of the India Today Group. The case stemmed from a televised news debate focused on political shifts in Bihar, aired in 2024. Purie Defends Journalistic Freedom Purie argued that the criminal defamation case was a direct violation of journalistic freedom, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. He emphasized that the complaint lacked specific allegations or defamatory imputations against him. Supreme Court Bench Grants Stay on May 19 The stay order was granted by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. The decision came after an appeal challenged the Patna High Court‘s March 24 ruling, which had upheld the summoning order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Patna. Legal Representation and Arguments Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, assisted by Hrishikesh Baruah, represented Purie. They contended that the legal action lacked merit, asserting that Purie was unfairly implicated without direct involvement or jurisdictional basis. Defamation Linked to Janata Dal (United) Debate The defamation case was triggered by a 2024 televised debate discussing internal developments within the Janata Dal (United) party. The broadcast included speculation on leadership changes involving Nitish Kumar, Tejashwi Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav, and Lallan Singh. The conversation revolved around whether the unfolding events were a political revolt or strategic repositioning. Concerns About Selective Targeting of Media Criticism arose as the defamation complaint was filed only against India Today and its editorial leadership, while other media outlets like ABP News and The Hindu aired similar content. This raised concerns about selective targeting and unequal treatment of media platforms. Procedural Irregularities and Legal Errors The petitioner’s legal team highlighted significant procedural lapses: No investigation under Section 202 CrPC despite jurisdictional limitations. Examination conducted primarily by the complainant’s lawyer, not the magistrate, violating Section 200 CrPC. Purie was charged under conflicting accused numbers and a nonexistent provision, Section 500A IPC, showcasing judicial oversight. Supreme Court Recognizes Flaws and Grants Relief Acknowledging the procedural violations and legal irregularities, the Supreme Court granted a stay on all further proceedings against Aroon Purie. This decision is seen as a strong reaffirmation of press freedom and due process. India Today’s Legal Representation Nasser Kabir, Group General Counsel for India Today, also appeared in the case, further emphasizing the media house’s stance against the selective and flawed legal targeting. Conclusion: A Landmark Moment for Press Freedom in India The Supreme Court’s intervention in staying the criminal defamation case against Aroon Purie marks a pivotal moment in safeguarding journalistic freedom in India. The case highlights the growing concerns over the misuse of defamation laws to silence media voices and reinforces the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional rights. As debates around political developments and press accountability continue, this decision serves as a strong reminder that a free press is vital to a functioning democracy. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Sada Law • May 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Sada Law • May 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Sada Law • May 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case

Trending Today Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 21 May 2025 The Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to former IAS probationer Puja Khedkar in the UPSC cheating case involving allegations of OBC and disability quota misuse. Read the detailed timeline and court observations here. Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to former IAS probationer Puja Khedkar in connection with the high-profile UPSC cheating case. The allegations include misusing OBC reservation and disability quota benefits during the 2022 civil services examination. Supreme Court Defends Bail: “She Is Not a Terrorist or Drug Lord” During the hearing, a bench comprising Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma highlighted that Khedkar is not accused of any violent crimes such as murder (Section 302 IPC) or offenses under the NDPS Act. The court emphasized, “She has lost everything and will not get a job anywhere,” suggesting that the punishment has, in many ways, already been delivered. Delhi Police Opposes Bail, Citing Non-Cooperation Despite the bail grant, the Delhi Police opposed the move, arguing that Khedkar was not cooperating with the investigation and that the charges were of a serious nature. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the Delhi High Court should have granted her bail earlier, considering the facts of the case. Allegations Against Puja Khedkar: Forgery and Quota Fraud Khedkar allegedly submitted false documents to avail herself of reservation benefits in the 2022 UPSC exam. A written complaint by the Union Public Service Commission in July 2024 led to formal charges of cheating, forgery, and violations under the IT Act and the Disability Act. Khedkar has denied all allegations made against her. Supreme Court’s Conditions and Crime Branch Interrogation On April 21, the Supreme Court directed Khedkar to appear before the Crime Branch on May 2 for questioning. The bench also instructed law enforcement to refrain from any coercive action. During her appearance at the Kamla Market office, she was interrogated for over eight hours, during which she answered several rounds of questioning and was asked to produce specific documents. Investigation Focus: Fake Disability Certificates According to Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, the investigation aims to uncover the network of individuals who may have assisted Khedkar in acquiring fake disability certificates. Authorities believe that custodial interrogation could help reveal further leads in the quota misuse scam. Conclusion: A Case That Raises Questions About Reservation Misuse The anticipatory bail granted to Puja Khedkar marks a critical moment in the ongoing investigation into alleged misuse of the reservation system in India. While the courts have offered her interim relief, the case continues to spotlight the need for stricter verification and systemic checks in competitive examinations like the UPSC Civil Services Exam. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Sada Law • May 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case Read More »

Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit

Trending Today Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 21 May 2025 Bollywood star Akshay Kumar sues co-star Paresh Rawal for ₹25 crore after the actor’s unexpected exit from Hera Pheri 3. Discover the full story behind the legal battle and the film’s production turmoil. Akshay Kumar Files ₹25 Crore Lawsuit Against Paresh Rawal Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit In a major twist for the highly anticipated Hera Pheri franchise, actor-producer Akshay Kumar has filed a ₹25 crore lawsuit against veteran actor Paresh Rawal. The legal action comes after Rawal exited Hera Pheri 3 midway through production, citing personal reasons. Why Akshay Kumar Is Suing Paresh Rawal According to a report by Hindustan Times, the lawsuit accuses Paresh Rawal of “gross unprofessional conduct.” Akshay, who also serves as the film’s producer under his banner Cape of Good Films, claims that Rawal breached a signed contract by abandoning the project. Akshay acquired the rights to Hera Pheri 3 from renowned producer Firoz Nadiadwala. This is reportedly the first time in his three-decade-long career that Akshay has taken legal action against a fellow actor. Filming and Fallout: What Went Wrong? Production for Hera Pheri 3 began in April 2025 with Akshay Kumar, Paresh Rawal, and Suniel Shetty returning to reprise their beloved roles. However, after substantial investments had been made in the shoot, Paresh Rawal unexpectedly announced his departure from the project via social media. Paresh Rawal Denies Creative Disagreements In his statement on X (formerly Twitter), Rawal denied rumors of creative conflicts. He wrote, “I would like to clarify that my decision to leave Hera Pheri 3 was not based on creative disagreements. THERE IS NO CREATIVE DISAGREEMENT WITH THE FILM MAKER, I REITERATE.” He added that he has immense respect for the film’s director, Priyadarshan, further dismissing speculation around internal disputes. History Repeats: Paresh Rawal’s Pattern of Exits This isn’t the first time Paresh Rawal has walked away from a project. He previously backed out of Billu Barber, a film starring Shah Rukh Khan and also directed by Priyadarshan. In 2023, he declined to participate in Oh My God 2 due to dissatisfaction with the script. Rawal’s Criticism of Bollywood Sequels In past interviews, Rawal has voiced his discontent with sequels in general. Comparing Hera Pheri’s follow-ups to films like Lage Raho Munna Bhai and Munna Bhai MBBS, he said: “You cook up the same thing when you make sequels after sequels… there’s mental bankruptcy or mental lethargy. I’m doing the sequel because I don’t want the film to get stuck, but there is no happiness.” The Future of Hera Pheri 3 Despite the setbacks, the future of Hera Pheri 3 remains uncertain but highly anticipated. Fans are eager to see whether the legal drama off-screen will affect the film’s release or cast lineup moving forward. Conclusion: Legal Battle Adds Twist to Hera Pheri 3’s Comeback The unexpected fallout between Akshay Kumar and Paresh Rawal has added a dramatic twist to Hera Pheri 3. While fans eagerly await the film’s return, this legal conflict could reshape its production and casting. Whether the beloved franchise can overcome this controversy remains to be seen. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Read More »

Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained

Trending Today Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained NITU KUMARI 21 May 2025 Explore the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 decision on the enforceability of unstamped arbitration agreements in India. Understand the implications of the Indian Stamp Act and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Introduction to the Legal Issue: Unstamped Arbitration Agreements In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified the enforceability of arbitration agreements in unstamped contracts. The case explored the complex interplay between the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. This decision is critical for businesses and legal professionals dealing with arbitration clauses in contracts that are not stamped correctly. Key Case Facts The issue arose after conflicting judgments in previous Supreme Court cases, including SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd. (2011) and N N Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021). In the 2011 decision, the Court ruled that an unstamped arbitration clause is void, while the 2021 ruling reversed this position. The matter was eventually brought before a Constitution Bench to resolve these inconsistencies. In December 2022, a curative petition was filed to reconsider the Bhaskar Raju case (2020), leading to a broader interpretation in April 2023. The final judgment determined the validity of unstamped arbitration clauses in contracts. Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling on Unstamped Arbitration Agreements The Core Question: Is an Unstamped Arbitration Agreement Enforceable? The primary question addressed by the Court was whether an arbitration clause in an unstamped or inadequately stamped contract could be enforced. The Court’s decision overturned earlier rulings, affirming that an unstamped agreement is not void but merely inadmissible as evidence until the stamp duty is paid. The Supreme Court’s Judgment: Clarifying the Legal Distinction The Court’s decision hinged on a critical distinction between “inadmissibility” and “voidness.” According to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, an unstamped contract cannot be presented as evidence. However, this does not render the agreement void or unenforceable in arbitration proceedings. Key Takeaway: A document that is improperly stamped is not null and void; it is only inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. The defect can be cured by paying the required stamp duty, as stipulated in Section 42(2) of the Stamp Act. Minimizing Judicial Interference in Arbitration One of the key principles underpinning the Court’s ruling is the intention to minimize judicial interference in the arbitration process. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is designed to limit court involvement in arbitration matters, as highlighted in Section 5 of the Act. The Court emphasized the importance of Section 8, which mandates that courts must refer parties to arbitration if a legitimate agreement exists, without questioning the validity of the arbitration clause during referral. Understanding the Competence-Competence Doctrine and Its Impact The competence-competence doctrine empowers arbitrators to determine their own jurisdiction, including the validity of the arbitration agreement. This principle is enshrined in Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which grants arbitrators the authority to rule on disputes related to the existence or legality of the agreement, even if it is unstamped. The Role of the Indian Stamp Act in Arbitration While the Indian Stamp Act imposes requirements for stamp duty on contracts, the Supreme Court clarified that the Act’s fiscal purpose should not obstruct the arbitration process. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self-contained code, and its provisions will prevail unless expressly overridden by another law. The Court concluded that while arbitrators are bound by the Stamp Act, they have the power to enforce the payment of stamp duty to make the document admissible as evidence. Conclusion: What This Ruling Means for Businesses and Legal Professionals The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling has significant implications for businesses and legal professionals. It offers clarity on how unstamped arbitration agreements will be treated, ensuring that arbitration clauses in contracts remain enforceable even when the stamp duty is unpaid. Key Takeaways: Unstamped contracts are not void but are inadmissible as evidence until the correct stamp duty is paid. The competence-competence doctrine allows arbitrators to decide on the validity of arbitration agreements, even if the contract is not properly stamped. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act aims to reduce judicial interference, making the arbitration process smoother and more efficient. For businesses involved in contracts with arbitration clauses, ensuring proper stamping is now more important than ever to avoid unnecessary legal hurdles. This landmark decision ensures that legitimate arbitration agreements are not easily invalidated due to technicalities related to stamp duty. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs

Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Read More »

Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan

Trending Today Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 21 May 2025 A legal battle unfolds as a follower of the historic Banke Bihari Temple petitions the Supreme Court against the Uttar Pradesh government’s ₹500 crore redevelopment plan, citing denial of fair hearing and heritage concerns. Devotee Challenges Supreme Court Ruling on Banke Bihari Temple Redevelopment A follower of the revered Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan has filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking a revision of the recent verdict allowing the Uttar Pradesh government to utilize temple funds for a large-scale redevelopment project. Background: Court Permits Use of Temple Funds for Corridor Project On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court granted permission for the UP government to use fixed deposits from the Banke Bihari Temple to acquire five acres of land surrounding the temple. The land is intended for the construction of a corridor aimed at enhancing pilgrim movement and temple infrastructure. The land, as per the order, must be registered under the deity’s name. Petitioner Claims Lack of Representation and Fair Hearing The petition was filed by Shebait and temple caretaker Devendra Nath Goswami, who asserts his direct lineage from Swami Sri Hari Das Ji, the original founder of the temple. Represented by Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, Goswami argued that the Supreme Court ruling was made ex parte, without his inclusion or opportunity to respond. Goswami’s family has managed the temple’s day-to-day operations for over 500 years, preserving traditional rituals and customs. The petition contends that the court’s decision was made while related litigation was still pending in the Allahabad High Court. Legal Concerns Over Redevelopment Approval The petitioner pointed out that the state’s intervention application in the Supreme Court was filed in a separate Special Leave Petition, unrelated to the main case pending in Allahabad High Court (PIL No. 1509/2022). The plea argues this tactic bypassed due judicial process and denied participation to hereditary stakeholders actively involved in temple management. Demands for Justice and Cultural Preservation In the plea, the petitioner has requested the following: Modification of Supreme Court Ruling (SLP Civil 29702 of 2024) to revoke paragraphs 19, 20, and 24 which allow fund utilization and land purchase without adequate consultation. Stay on Redevelopment Execution, including any demolition or construction actions until the matter is fully adjudicated. Formation of a Heritage and Stakeholder Consultation Committee to ensure a fair and inclusive planning process. Protection of Religious and Cultural Legacy, urging the court to consider the temple’s historic, spiritual, and cultural significance before permitting irreversible changes. Supreme Court Agrees to Review the Petition Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih have agreed to list the case for hearing in the upcoming week. The outcome could shape not only the future of the Banke Bihari Temple but also set a precedent for the management of temple funds and religious heritage sites in India. Conclusion: Balancing Development and Devotion The petition against the UP government’s redevelopment plan for the Banke Bihari Temple highlights the critical need to balance infrastructural progress with the preservation of religious heritage. As the Supreme Court reconsiders its decision, the outcome will have lasting implications for temple governance, cultural legacy, and stakeholder rights across India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Read More »

Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act

Trending Today Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 21 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) cannot review or revise its previous decisions under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Learn about the key judgment, its legal implications, and the role of documentary evidence in juvenile cases. Supreme Court Rules: Juvenile Justice Board Lacks Power to Review Its Own Rulings On May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant verdict regarding the authority of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Court clarified that the JJB does not possess the legal jurisdiction to review or modify its own rulings in later proceedings. Context of the Case: Date of Birth Dispute in Juvenility Plea A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment in a case involving a juvenility plea. The controversy arose when the JJB initially accepted the birthdate of respondent No. 2 as 08.09.2003. This was based on a school certificate submitted during Miscellaneous Case No. 9/2000, connected to Crime Case No. 11/2000 filed under Section 307 of the IPC. However, during a subsequent hearing, the JJB contradicted its earlier stance and sought an opinion from a medical board to determine the respondent’s age. Supreme Court’s Criticism of JJB’s Reconsideration Attempt The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of this inconsistency. It held that allowing the JJB to seek a medical opinion after previously accepting official documents would amount to an unlawful review of its own order, which is not permitted under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The bench stated: “JJB is not permitted to later claim that the respondent’s birthdate is different and seek a medical board’s opinion. Doing so would effectively mean revisiting a settled order, which is beyond the powers conferred under the JJ Act, 2015.” Documentary Proof vs. Medical Report: Legal Priority Explained The Court emphasized that under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, medical evidence should only be used in the absence of documentary proof. In this case, the respondent’s school certificate served as valid documentation of his date of birth, yet the JJB relied on a medical board’s assessment that estimated his age to be 21 years. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that this approach was legally flawed, reinforcing that ossification tests and other medical methods are only supplementary and cannot override valid documents like school records. Granting of Bail: Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Decision The Supreme Court also upheld the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the respondent. It found no evidence suggesting that the respondent posed a threat to society or himself. Furthermore, his statutory right to bail remained intact, despite the JJB’s preliminary assessment under Section 15, which recommended that he be tried as an adult. Conclusion: Reinforcing Legal Boundaries of the JJB This landmark ruling reinforces the legal boundaries of the Juvenile Justice Board and upholds the importance of documentary evidence over supplementary medical evaluations. It serves as a reminder that review powers must be explicitly granted by law, and that judicial consistency is critical in upholding justice for juveniles. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Read More »

Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice

Trending Today Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice NITU KUMARI 21 May 2025 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kuldeep Kumar, overturning the Chandigarh mayoral election results due to ballot tampering. Learn how electoral malpractice was exposed and justice was served. Introduction: A Controversial Mayoral Election in Chandigarh On January 30, 2024, the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation held its highly anticipated mayoral election. The contest quickly became controversial following allegations of electoral malpractice. Kuldeep Kumar, backed by an alliance between the Indian National Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party, contested the results after eight of his votes were declared invalid by the Presiding Officer, Anil Masih. The issue escalated to the Supreme Court of India, which ultimately ruled in Kumar’s favor, citing serious procedural violations and abuse of authority. Facts of the Case: What Happened During the Chandigarh Mayoral Election? The mayoral election included 36 eligible voters: elected councilors and the Member of Parliament from Chandigarh. Kuldeep Kumar received 12 votes, while Manoj Kumar (a Bharatiya Janata Party candidate) received 16 votes. The Presiding Officer invalidated 8 ballots—all in favor of Kuldeep Kumar—due to alleged ink marks. Video evidence revealed that these ink marks were made during the counting process, leading to claims of tampering and vote defacement. Legal Battle: From High Court to the Supreme Court After the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused interim relief, Kuldeep Kumar filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2998 of 2024 in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Key Legal Questions Raised Did the Presiding Officer’s actions constitute electoral fraud? Were the 8 invalidated ballots actually valid votes for Kuldeep Kumar? Could the Court invoke Article 142 to correct the injustice? Key Legal Provisions Cited Regulation 6 of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation Regulations, 1996 – Governs election procedures and ballot validity. Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Permits prosecution for false evidence. Article 142 of the Constitution – Empowers the Supreme Court to deliver complete justice. Arguments Presented by Both Sides Appellant: Kuldeep Kumar Accused the Presiding Officer of intentionally defacing ballots to manipulate the outcome. Cited that ink marks do not render ballots invalid under the municipal regulations. Requested the Court recognize him as the rightfully elected mayor. Respondents: U.T. Chandigarh & Others The Presiding Officer claimed ink markings were used to identify already-defaced ballots. Manoj Kumar, the eighth respondent, argued a new election would be necessary since he had already resigned. Supreme Court Judgment: Justice Restored Date of Judgment: February 20, 2024Citation: 2024 INSC 129Presiding Judges: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India Justice J.B. Pardiwala Justice Manoj Misra Court’s Ruling Found electoral malpractice had occurred. Declared Kuldeep Kumar the legitimate mayor. Invalidated the previously announced result in favor of Manoj Kumar. Ratio Decidendi The eight defaced ballots were legally valid and intended for the appellant. The Presiding Officer had exceeded his legal authority. Obiter Dicta Emphasized that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Strongly criticized abuse of power by election officials. Court-Ordered Actions & Future Safeguards Directed action under Section 340 CrPC against the Presiding Officer. Issued guidelines to preserve election records and ensure transparency in future elections. Conclusion: A Victory for Electoral Integrity The Supreme Court’s verdict in Kuldeep Kumar vs. U.T. Chandigarh reinforces its role as a guardian of democracy. By invoking Article 142, the Court upheld the sanctity of elections, restored the rightful candidate, and underscored the importance of accountability in governance. This case serves as a precedent in safeguarding the democratic fabric of India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Read More »

Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation

Trending Today Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 21 May 2025 Tamil Nadu has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking the release of Rs 2291 crores under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme. The state argues the Union Government’s move to link the funds with NEP 2020 implementation is unconstitutional. Tamil Nadu Sues Union Government Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crores Linked to NEP 2020 In a significant federal challenge, Tamil Nadu has filed a constitutional petition under Article 131 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court of India. The state seeks to recover over Rs 2291 crores allegedly withheld by the Union Government under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS), citing non-implementation of the National Education Policy 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools initiative. State Seeks Immediate Release of Funds and Legal Declaration Tamil Nadu alleges that tying SSS funding to NEP 2020 and PM SHRI School implementation is “unconstitutional, illegal, unreasonable, and arbitrary.” It demands not only the withheld Rs 2291 crores but also interest and a declaration affirming that such conditionality violates the principles of cooperative federalism. Project Approval and Denied Disbursement According to the plaint, the Project Approval Board sanctioned Rs 3585.99 crores on February 16, 2024, for the financial year 2024–2025. Under the 60:40 sharing ratio, Rs 2151.59 crores were due from the Centre. Despite formal approval, the Union has not released any installments, allegedly using the non-adoption of NEP 2020 as justification. NEP 2020 and PM SHRI: Key Points of Contention The Union Government is accused of conditioning SSS disbursements on Tamil Nadu’s signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to implement NEP 2020 and designate exemplary PM SHRI Schools. However, Tamil Nadu opposes the NEP’s three-language policy, citing its constitutional and cultural implications. The Centre identified approximately 1100 PM SHRI schools in Tamil Nadu and requested compliance via letters dated February 23 and March 7, 2024. The state responded on July 6, 2024, requesting amendments to the MoU, particularly clauses related to full-scale NEP implementation. No Statutory Requirement to Adopt NEP 2020 Tamil Nadu contends that NEP 2020 is a policy document without statutory backing, and thus its implementation cannot be a prerequisite for funding under SSS, a legally mandated initiative per the Right to Education Act, 2009. The state argues that linking unrelated schemes undermines its autonomy and the constitutional structure of federalism. Wider Impact Across Other States Tamil Nadu claims similar fund denials were imposed on Kerala and West Bengal. These delays have reportedly disrupted salary payments, teacher training, textbook distribution, and infrastructure development in government schools. Legal Precedents Support State Autonomy The petition references the 2022 judgment in Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited, reaffirming states’ rights to resist coercive federal practices. It also points to a recent Supreme Court ruling that clarified no state can be legally compelled to implement NEP 2020. Legal Representation The case was filed by Advocate Sabarish Subramanian and presented by Senior Advocate P. Wilson, underscoring the constitutional gravity and national implications of the case. Conclusion: A Defining Legal Battle for Federalism and Education Policy Tamil Nadu’s legal action against the Union Government highlights a pivotal constitutional and political debate over the boundaries of federalism, statutory funding obligations, and the discretionary nature of national policy implementation like NEP 2020. By invoking Article 131, the state is not only fighting for the release of Rs 2291 crores under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme, but also asserting its constitutional autonomy against perceived overreach by the Centre. As this case unfolds in the Supreme Court, it could set a significant precedent regarding the limits of central influence over state-level education policies and funding mechanisms. The outcome will be closely watched by states like Kerala and West Bengal, who face similar challenges, and by education stakeholders across India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation

Trending Today Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 21 May 2025 The Supreme Court grants interim bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in connection with his controversial social media posts on Operation Sindoor. A Special Investigation Team is also established to probe the case. Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in Operation Sindoor Case The Supreme Court of India has granted temporary bail to Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a professor at Ashoka University, in a case involving controversial social media posts about Operation Sindoor. Mahmudabad had been in police custody since his arrest on May 18, 2025, following an FIR lodged by the Haryana Police. Special Investigation Team (SIT) Ordered by Supreme Court While granting bail, the Court refused to stop the investigation. Instead, it directed the Haryana Director General of Police to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within 24 hours. The SIT must consist of senior Indian Police Service officers from outside Haryana and Delhi, with one female officer included. The team will be led by an Inspector General (IG) rank officer, supported by two Superintendent of Police (SP) rank officers. Restrictions Imposed as Part of Interim Bail As a condition of interim bail, Mahmudabad is prohibited from posting or publishing any content related to the case or commenting on terrorist attacks or India’s counter-terror operations. He is also required to cooperate fully with the SIT during the investigation. The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh, emphasized that the interim bail is intended to facilitate further inquiry. Kapil Sibal Advocates for Mahmudabad, FIRs and Free Speech Debated Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahmudabad, urged the court to prevent any further FIRs on the same issue. Justice Kant orally advised the State of Haryana to avoid duplicating cases but permitted the state to investigate new findings if any. Sibal presented Mahmudabad’s posts from Instagram and Facebook, calling them “patriotic.” However, Justice Kant questioned the timing and tone of the remarks, especially references to right-wing commentators, mob lynching, and the praise of Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. Justice Kant on Language, Intent, and Responsibility Justice Kant pointed out that while freedom of speech is protected, Mahmudabad’s wording suggested “dog-whistling”—a term used to describe coded language that signals controversial views to a specific audience. He advised the professor to use neutral and respectful language that doesn’t provoke or offend. Justice Kant added, “A learned professor cannot be without words from the dictionary. He should express ideas clearly and respectfully, without causing harm to others’ sentiments.” Sibal maintained that the comments lacked criminal intent and concluded with the patriotic phrase “Jai Hind.” He also shared that Mahmudabad’s wife is nine months pregnant and due to deliver soon, as a reason for humanitarian consideration. State’s Position and Ongoing Judicial Process Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the State, argued that the remarks were not as benign as suggested and may have offended female army officers. Justice Kant acknowledged that some terms used could carry dual meanings and warranted investigation. Mahmudabad was earlier placed in judicial custody by a Sonepat municipal court. The police’s request for a seven-day remand was denied, and he was instead held for two days starting May 18. Charges Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Mahmudabad faces charges under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including: Section 196: Acts undermining communal harmony Section 152: Statements that incite public discord Other sections: Actions that threaten national sovereignty and insult a woman’s modesty The Haryana State Commission for Women, chaired by Renu Bhatia, has also issued a notice to the professor. Conclusion: A Case at the Crossroads of Free Speech and National Security The temporary bail of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad by the Supreme Court highlights the delicate balance between protecting freedom of expression and safeguarding national security. While the Court has upheld Mahmudabad’s right to due process, it has also emphasized responsible communication, especially in sensitive times following events like Operation Sindoor. As the newly formed Special Investigation Team (SIT) undertakes a thorough examination, the case will likely serve as a precedent in discussions surrounding digital speech, academic responsibility, and patriotic expression in India. The coming weeks will be critical in determining the legal and social ramifications of this high-profile case. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Mandates

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Read More »