Sada Law

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

Trending Today 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 Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility NITU KUMARI 21 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India has mandated a minimum of three years of legal practice to qualify for judicial service exams for civil judges (junior division). Read more about the implications, legal background, and future of judicial recruitment in India. Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on Judicial Recruitment In a major ruling, the Supreme Court of India has declared that candidates must have at least three years of legal practice to be eligible for judicial service, specifically for civil judge (junior division) roles. The verdict was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran. Mandatory Legal Practice Before Taking Judicial Exams According to the Court’s ruling, all state governments must amend their rules to require a minimum of three years of practice as a lawyer for candidates appearing in the civil judge (junior division) exams. This practice must be certified by an advocate with at least ten years of standing at the Bar. The Court added that experience as a law clerk to judges will also count toward this requirement. Additionally, new recruits must undergo a one-year training period before they can preside in court. Future Implementation of the Rule The Court clarified that this mandate applies only to future judicial recruitment cycles. Ongoing recruitment processes initiated by the High Courts will proceed without this new requirement. Why the Rule Was Reinforced The judgment emphasized that appointing fresh law graduates as judges has led to several challenges. The bench noted that dealing with matters related to life, liberty, and property demands practical courtroom experience, not just academic knowledge. Counting Experience from Provisional Enrollment The Court stated that legal practice would be counted from the time of provisional enrollment as an advocate, rather than after passing the All India Bar Exam (AIBE). This is due to the varied schedules of AIBE across the country. Law Clerks and Senior Advocate Certification Work experience as a law clerk will be recognized as part of the required legal practice. Moreover, a senior advocate with 10 years at the Bar must certify the candidate’s experience. Case Background: Origin and Legal Challenge The issue began with challenges to a 2002 amendment by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which introduced the three-year practice rule for aspiring civil judges. Several states adopted this rule to ensure judges possess practical legal skills and courtroom knowledge. Support and Opposition to the Rule Organizations like the Bar Council of India and various state bar councils supported the rule, stating it enhances the quality of judicial decisions and upholds the judiciary’s integrity. On the other hand, academicians and law graduates criticized it as a barrier to equal opportunity, arguing it unfairly restricts judicial entry and goes beyond constitutional provisions. Article 233(2) and Its Interpretation The debate also focused on Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, which requires seven years of practice to become a district judge. However, this does not apply to junior civil judges, whose eligibility is governed by state rules. Historical Context: All India Judges Association Case In the 2002 All India Judges Association v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court had noted the importance of real-world legal experience but did not make it mandatory. Since then, states have followed different rules—some requiring legal practice, others allowing direct recruitment from law schools. Conclusion: A Step Toward Strengthening the Judiciary The Supreme Court’s decision to mandate a minimum of three years of legal practice before entering the judiciary marks a significant shift in India’s judicial recruitment policy. By prioritizing practical legal experience, the ruling aims to ensure that new judges are better equipped to handle complex legal matters with competence and maturity. While the decision may pose challenges for recent graduates, it ultimately strengthens the judiciary’s credibility and enhances the quality of justice delivery. With support from institutions like the Bar Council of India and a clear implementation path outlined by the Supreme Court, this reform could set a new benchmark for judicial standards across the country. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases 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 Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Read More »

Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sada Law

Trending Today 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 Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights India Imposes Import Restrictions on Bangladeshi Goods Through Northeast Checkpoints Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case MAHI SINHA 20 May 2025 The Kerala High Court raises strong concerns over the delayed 10th-grade results of students accused in the Shahabas murder case. Explore the legal and ethical issues surrounding child rights, education access, and criminal law reform. Kerala High Court Demands Clarity on Withholding 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case On May 20, 2025, the Kerala High Court questioned the State on why the 10th-grade exam results of students allegedly involved in the murder of 15-year-old Shahabas had not been released. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas raised critical concerns over the delay, emphasizing that academic results should not be withheld due to criminal allegations. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas: “If They Wrote the Exam, the Results Must Be Published” During the hearing of the case, XX v State of Kerala, Justice Thomas orally stated, “The results must be published if they have written the examination.” The Court drew a clear line between the criminal investigation and the students’ right to education, a fundamental child right protected by the Child Rights Commission. Details of the Shahabas Murder Case The incident involves five students accused of planning and executing an assault on fellow student Shahabas, allegedly resulting in his death from a skull fracture. The group reportedly used WhatsApp and Instagram to coordinate the attack. Child Rights Commission’s Role and Government’s Response Despite a directive from the Child Rights Commission, the students’ academic results were withheld. Advocate K. M. Firoz, representing one of the minors, informed the court that the government dismissed the directive as a mere suggestion. Impact on Plus-One Admission Process The urgency of releasing the results was underscored by the fact that the single-window portal for Plus-One admissions was closing the same day. The delay in publishing the results could jeopardize the students’ future academic prospects. Criminal Law Reform and Juvenile Rights in Focus The Kerala High Court reminded the State that reformation is the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. Preventing a minor who has taken an exam from receiving results contradicts this principle. The Court emphasized that administrative authorities could face consequences for any intentional delay. Bail Hearings and Further Legal Action The current proceedings are linked to an application challenging the denial of bail for the accused minors. The Court advised that the appropriate legal path would be to challenge the government’s noncompliance with the Commission’s orders directly in the High Court. A decision on the bail request is expected in the next session. Conclusion: Balancing Justice and Education in Juvenile Cases The ongoing Shahabas murder case raises significant concerns at the intersection of criminal law, child rights, and educational access. As the Kerala High Court emphasized, the right to education must not be overshadowed by ongoing legal proceedings—especially in the case of minors. With critical deadlines like Plus-One admissions at stake, ensuring timely publication of exam results is not just a procedural necessity but a constitutional obligation. This case may well set a precedent for how India’s legal system handles similar instances involving juvenile offenders and their fundamental rights. 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 Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Read More »

Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sada Law

Trending Today 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 Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights India Imposes Import Restrictions on Bangladeshi Goods Through Northeast Checkpoints Odisha YouTuber Under Probe for Alleged Links to Detained Spy Jyoti Malhotra in Pakistan Espionage Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony MAHI SINHA 20 May 2025 The Delhi High Court ruled that once an employee testifies under oath, the burden of proof shifts to the employer. This judgment reaffirms the rights of workers under Indian labor law and highlights key obligations under the Industrial Disputes Act. Delhi High Court Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Employee Testimony In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that once an employee testifies under oath, the burden of proof shifts to the employer. The case involved Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital and a sanitation worker, with Justice Manoj Jain presiding over the matter. Background: Sanitation Worker Denied Minimum Wage The case dates back to 2007 when Sangeeta began working at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital as a sanitation worker, earning Rs. 5,500 per month. She alleged the hospital failed to provide basic employment benefits such as House Rent Allowance, transport allowance, and paid leave. According to her, the salary was also below the Delhi Government’s prescribed minimum wage. After she raised concerns with the hospital management, her employment was terminated in 2015. In response, Sangeeta filed an industrial dispute, claiming she was unjustly dismissed. Hospital Claims Contractual Outsourcing The hospital argued that Sangeeta was not their employee but was engaged by contractor M/s ACME Enterprises. They claimed all sanitation services were outsourced, and her employment ended in April 2015 after a new contractor was appointed. They insisted that Sangeeta’s name was absent from the contractor’s roster and that she had failed to prove continuous employment for over 240 days as required by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under Section 25F. Labor Court Awards Compensation, Hospital Appeals Despite the hospital’s arguments, the labor court ruled in favor of Sangeeta and awarded her Rs. 70,000 as compensation. Unhappy with the decision, the hospital appealed the ruling to the Delhi High Court. Court Analysis: Shifting Burden of Proof Justice Manoj Jain upheld the labor court’s decision. He ruled that while the initial burden to prove continuous employment lies with the employee, once the employee provides substantial evidence—such as salary checks and an unchallenged sworn statement—the burden then shifts to the employer. In this case, Sangeeta’s sworn testimony and payment records sufficed to shift the responsibility to the hospital. However, the hospital failed to provide documentation supporting its outsourcing claims, such as a valid contract with M/s ACME Enterprises or a list of workers employed by the contractor. No Reinstatement, Only Compensation While acknowledging the unlawful termination, the court declined to order Sangeeta’s reinstatement. Citing a long lapse of time and improper hiring practices, the judge ruled that monetary compensation was more appropriate. The court emphasized that appointing government workers without following due procedure would violate Article 16 of the Indian Constitution. The court referred to the precedent set in Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela, reinforcing the need for merit-based and transparent recruitment in public employment. Final Verdict: Compensation Upheld The Delhi High Court dismissed the hospital’s petition and upheld the labor court’s award of Rs. 70,000 in compensation to Sangeeta. The judgment reinforces the principle that employers must maintain proper records and cannot shirk their responsibilities through outsourcing claims. Conclusion: A Win for Workers’ Rights and Legal Accountability The Delhi High Court’s judgment is a significant milestone in upholding the rights of contractual and daily wage workers in India. By shifting the burden of proof to the employer after sworn employee testimony, the court has reinforced accountability under the Industrial Disputes Act. It also sends a clear message that outsourcing arrangements cannot be used as a shield to deny rightful compensation or benefits. This case serves as a precedent for similar labor disputes, especially where continuous service and minimum wage violations are in question. Employers must ensure compliance with employment laws and maintain transparent documentation, while workers can feel more empowered to assert their rights through legal channels. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Sada Law • May 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Read More »

Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sada Law

Trending Today 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 Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights India Imposes Import Restrictions on Bangladeshi Goods Through Northeast Checkpoints Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims MAHI SINHA 20 May 2025 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking “martyr” status for 26 tourists killed in the Pahalgam terror attack. Learn about the court’s reasoning, key statements, and legal context. PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Rejected by Punjab & Haryana High Court The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to declare 26 slain tourists of the tragic Pahalgam terrorist attack as “martyrs.” The plea, titled Ayush Ahuja v. Union of India, was heard and rejected on May 20, 2025. Court Maintains Policy Matters Are Not Judicial Decisions The ruling was issued by a bench comprising Justice Sumeet Goel and Chief Justice Sheel Nagu. The court emphasized that decisions regarding conferring “martyr” status fall under executive jurisdiction and not judicial purview. In the court’s words:“The Court refrains from entering into the field of policymaking, which is exclusively reserved for the executive.” However, the court allowed the petitioner to submit a representation to the appropriate authorities within 30 days for consideration. Chief Justice Questions Constitutional Basis of the PIL During the hearing, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu challenged the legal foundation of the plea under Article 226 of the Constitution. Addressing petitioner Ayush Ahuja, he asked,“Does proclaiming someone a martyr fall under Article 226? Can you cite even one precedent?”Ahuja defended his plea passionately, stating,“The innocent tourists were shot in the head by terrorists in the name of religion — they faced death like soldiers.” ASG Satya Pal Jain Opposes the Plea Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, representing the Union of India, strongly opposed the petition. He argued that the petitioner lacked awareness of ongoing governmental actions. Jain noted that the Home Minister had promptly visited Srinagar the evening of the attack. He emphasized:“This is not the time to raise such matters. The nation is on the brink of a larger conflict — priorities must be managed accordingly.” Judgment Reserved Earlier This Month The court had previously reserved its judgment on May 6. Apart from martyr status, the PIL also requested that Pahalgam be declared a “Memorable Martyrs/Shaheed Hindu Valley Tourist Place” to honor the victims’ memory. Chief Justice Nagu explained the procedural timeline for such honors, remarking:“Even when a soldier dies, award considerations take time — usually at least a year.” Conclusion: Executive Holds the Final Authority This case underscores the clear boundary between judiciary and executive powers in India. While the grief and heroism of the victims are acknowledged, the authority to bestow martyr status lies solely with the government. The court has provided a pathway for the petitioner to make his case to the relevant departments. 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 Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Read More »

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

Leave a Comment / 2025, Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today 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 Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights India Imposes Import Restrictions on Bangladeshi Goods Through Northeast Checkpoints Odisha YouTuber Under Probe for Alleged Links to Detained Spy Jyoti Malhotra in Pakistan Espionage Case Supreme Court Denies Stay on Rohingya Deportation, Questions Claims of Forced Expulsion into Sea Supreme Court Rules in Favor of ISKCON Bangalore in Hare Krishna Temple Ownership Dispute Major Bureaucratic Reshuffle in Delhi Under Rekha Gupta’s Leadership Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples NITU KUMARI 20 May 2025 In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India ruled that only persons belonging to the Vaishnav Sampradaya should be appointed as receivers of historic Mathura temples. Read the full case summary and implications for temple administration in India. Introduction In a significant ruling on May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarified the eligibility criteria for temple receivership in Mathura, emphasizing the importance of appointing individuals from the Vaishnav Sampradaya. The case, Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors., revolves around the long-standing administrative dispute concerning the Sri Giriraj Temple in Govardhan, Mathura. Background of the Case The Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti, established in 1957 to manage temple affairs, faced internal conflict after two disputed elections in 1999. These events triggered legal battles over the rightful management of the temple. After several rounds of litigation—from the Trial Court to the High Court—the case eventually reached the Supreme Court. The core issue was whether Advocate Nand Kishore Upadhyay, not affiliated with the Vaishnav Sampradaya, could serve as receiver. Key Legal Issues The Supreme Court addressed several crucial questions: Should receivers of historic temples be affiliated with the religious sect the temple represents? Was the High Court justified in reversing the Trial Court’s order? Does the appointment of advocates as receivers undermine religious and cultural administration? Supreme Court’s Judgment Delivering its verdict, the two-judge bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ruled that: “Receivers of temples in Mathura and Vrindavan must be individuals from the Vaishnav Sampradaya, as these are the most sacred regions for Vaishnav devotees.” The Court expressed concern that receivership appointments had become long-term solutions instead of temporary administrative measures. It criticized the tendency to appoint legal professionals without religious or cultural ties to the temple’s traditions. Cultural and Religious Significance of Mathura and Vrindavan The Court’s judgment underscored the profound religious heritage of Mathura, believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna, and Vrindavan, where he spent his childhood and performed divine acts like the Raas Leela and Govardhan Leela. Millions of Hindu devotees visit these ancient cities each year, making proper temple administration and infrastructure essential. The judgment acknowledged ongoing efforts by the Uttar Pradesh government under the Braj Planning and Development Board Act, 2015, but highlighted the need for a collaborative effort among trusts, government bodies, and local communities. Call for Infrastructure and Administrative Reforms The Supreme Court pointed out several shortcomings: Inadequate crowd management, especially in temples like Shri Banke Bihari Temple, where a tragic stampede occurred in 2022 Poorly maintained pilgrimage facilities Need for expanding and renovating sacred sites such as Kashi Ghat, Vishram Ghat, and Kusum Sarovar The Court emphasized that culturally competent and religiously aligned administration is vital for managing these high-footfall temples. Conclusion This ruling in Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. sets a precedent for religious institution management across India. By directing that only members of the Vaishnav Sampradaya be appointed as temple receivers, the Supreme Court of India has prioritized cultural authenticity, religious heritage, and administrative competence in sacred temple towns. Key Takeaways Only Vaishnav Sampradaya members should be appointed as temple receivers in Mathura and Vrindavan. The judgment underscores the importance of preserving religious and cultural identity in temple administration. There is a strong call for improving temple infrastructure, devotee management, and public amenities in key pilgrimage cities. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Insurance Companies Not Liable for Ensuring Long-Term Well-Being of Accident Victims Supreme Court Rules Insurance Companies Not Liable for Ensuring Long-Term Well-Being of Accident Victims Sada Law • May 17, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Use of Urdu for Official Purposes in Maharashtra: Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra (2025) Supreme Court Upholds Use of Urdu for Official Purposes in Maharashtra: Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra (2025) Sada Law • May 17, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Read More »

Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sada Law

Trending Today Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights India Imposes Import Restrictions on Bangladeshi Goods Through Northeast Checkpoints Odisha YouTuber Under Probe for Alleged Links to Detained Spy Jyoti Malhotra in Pakistan Espionage Case Supreme Court Denies Stay on Rohingya Deportation, Questions Claims of Forced Expulsion into Sea Supreme Court Rules in Favor of ISKCON Bangalore in Hare Krishna Temple Ownership Dispute Major Bureaucratic Reshuffle in Delhi Under Rekha Gupta’s Leadership India Ready to Remove All Tariffs on US Goods, Says Donald Trump Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota MAHI SINHA 19 May 2025 The Rajasthan High Court raises alarms over rising student suicides in Kota and the lack of legal regulation for coaching institutes. Despite a pending PIL since 2016, no law has been enacted. Read about the court’s response and upcoming Supreme Court hearing. ‘Serious Concern’: Rajasthan High Court Criticizes Absence of Law Regulating Coaching Centers Amid Student Suicides On May 19, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court voiced serious concern over the increasing number of student suicides linked to unregulated coaching institutes, particularly in Kota, Rajasthan. The issue was addressed under the *Suo Moto v. State of Rajasthan* case and associated petitions. Pending Since 2016: Lack of Legislation Sparks Judicial Intervention The division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit expressed disappointment that, despite the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being pending since 2016, no law has yet been enacted to regulate the booming coaching industry in Kota. The court described the current state as a “sorry state of affairs” and pointed to 14 student suicides already reported in 2025 alone. Court Urges Temporary Guidelines from Central Government In the absence of specific state legislation, the High Court proposed the temporary application of rules recommended by the Central Government of India. However, a respondent representing a coaching institute opposed the move, arguing that the matter is already under consideration by the Supreme Court of India. Supreme Court Involvement Delays Immediate Action Given the pending case in the Apex Court, scheduled for hearing on May 23, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court decided to delay issuing new directives. The respondent intends to file a petition to transfer the suo moto PIL to the Supreme Court for unified consideration. Future Hearing Scheduled as Suicides Continue to Rise Despite the urgency and gravity of the issue, the Court held off on passing additional orders, respecting the Supreme Court’s cognizance. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing two weeks from the date of the current order. Conclusion: Urgent Reforms Needed to Safeguard Students’ Lives The alarming rise in student suicides in Kota highlights the pressing need for immediate regulatory action in India’s coaching industry. The Rajasthan High Court has rightfully spotlighted the lack of legislation and accountability, despite a PIL pending for nearly a decade. While the Court has temporarily deferred to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, the gravity of the situation calls for swift, coordinated action by both state and central authorities. Implementing structured mental health support, transparent operational guidelines, and proper oversight of coaching centers must be prioritized to prevent further tragedies. As the legal proceedings continue, public awareness and policy reforms remain crucial in creating a safer, more compassionate academic environment for India’s youth. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Sada Law • May 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Sada Law • May 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Sada Law • May 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Read More »

Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sada Law

Trending Today Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights India Imposes Import Restrictions on Bangladeshi Goods Through Northeast Checkpoints Odisha YouTuber Under Probe for Alleged Links to Detained Spy Jyoti Malhotra in Pakistan Espionage Case Supreme Court Denies Stay on Rohingya Deportation, Questions Claims of Forced Expulsion into Sea Supreme Court Rules in Favor of ISKCON Bangalore in Hare Krishna Temple Ownership Dispute Major Bureaucratic Reshuffle in Delhi Under Rekha Gupta’s Leadership India Ready to Remove All Tariffs on US Goods, Says Donald Trump Supreme Court Rules Insurance Companies Not Liable for Ensuring Long-Term Well-Being of Accident Victims Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case MAHI SINHA 19 May 2025 The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a stern warning to a litigant in the Chandu Lal v. Maya Devi case for using contemptuous language against judges, emphasizing courtroom decorum and proper legal procedures. Punjab and Haryana High Court Warns Litigant for Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges In a recent development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a stern warning to a litigant in the case of Chandu Lal v. Smt. Maya Devi (deceased) through LRs. The petitioner made inappropriate and derogatory statements about three sitting High Court judges and a District Judge in Gurgaon during the court proceedings. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar’s Statement on Court Decorum According to Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, the court decided not to initiate formal contempt proceedings against the petitioner, citing his lack of legal expertise. However, the litigant received a clear warning: such behavior would not be tolerated in the future. “This Court is of the considered opinion that contempt proceedings need not be initiated against him due to the petitioner’s lack of legal knowledge,” remarked Justice Brar. Allegations of a Forged Will and CBI Investigation Request The petitioner had filed the plea seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged forgery of the will of Maya Devi. He claimed that her attorneys had fabricated the will using fake thumb impressions, and accused them of tampering with civil court records, with the help of an advocate. Court Recommends Jurisdictional Magistrate for Legal Remedy The High Court emphasized that the proper legal remedy would have been to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., rather than filing a direct petition with the High Court. The bench noted that the petitioner could not justify why he bypassed this essential step in the legal process. Scandalous Allegations Without Evidence Justice Brar further observed that the petitioner, who appeared in person, had used offensive language and made unsubstantiated allegations against court officials, including accusations of document tampering. The court highlighted the lack of evidence and pointed out that the petitioner failed to explain how he had been personally harmed in the matter. His accusations were labeled “scandalous and contemptuous,” and the plea was ultimately dismissed. Conclusion: A Reminder of Respect and Legal Process This case serves as a strong reminder about the importance of respecting judicial authority and following proper legal channels. The High Court’s warning underlines the necessity for litigants to exercise decorum and present credible, well-substantiated claims while addressing the judiciary. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Sada Law • May 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Sada Law • May 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights Sada Law • May 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Read More »

Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sada Law

Trending Today Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights India Imposes Import Restrictions on Bangladeshi Goods Through Northeast Checkpoints Odisha YouTuber Under Probe for Alleged Links to Detained Spy Jyoti Malhotra in Pakistan Espionage Case Supreme Court Denies Stay on Rohingya Deportation, Questions Claims of Forced Expulsion into Sea Supreme Court Rules in Favor of ISKCON Bangalore in Hare Krishna Temple Ownership Dispute Major Bureaucratic Reshuffle in Delhi Under Rekha Gupta’s Leadership India Ready to Remove All Tariffs on US Goods, Says Donald Trump Supreme Court Rules Insurance Companies Not Liable for Ensuring Long-Term Well-Being of Accident Victims Supreme Court Upholds Use of Urdu for Official Purposes in Maharashtra: Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra (2025) Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable MAHI SINHA 19 May 2025 The Allahabad High Court upholds a trial court survey order in the Sambhal Masjid dispute, declaring the Hindu plaintiffs’ suit maintainable. Learn more about the legal and historical details of this high-profile case. Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey in Sambhal Masjid Dispute In a significant development in the ongoing Sambhal Masjid dispute, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that the lawsuit filed by Hindu plaintiffs is not barred, thereby affirming the trial court’s order to conduct a survey of the mosque premises. The decision comes after the Mosque Committee challenged the trial court’s November 19, 2024, order directing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the mosque. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal presided over the case and upheld the survey directive. Background: Allegations of Temple Demolition in 1526 The case was filed by eight Hindu plaintiffs, including Mahant Rishiraj Giri, who allege that the Sambhal Mosque was constructed in 1526 following the demolition of an ancient Hindu temple—identified in the suit as the Hari Har Temple, dedicated to Kalki, the final avatar of Lord Vishnu. According to the plaintiffs, the Mughal emperor Babur ordered the partial destruction of the temple, converting the site into a mosque. Mosque Committee’s Argument Against the Survey The Mosque Committee contended that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) had issued the survey order in haste, without giving the committee a chance to present their case. Despite this objection, the mosque was surveyed twice—on November 19 and November 24, 2024. Supreme Court’s Temporary Stay on Proceedings In November 2024, the Supreme Court of India stayed further proceedings in the trial court until the High Court ruled on the Mosque Committee’s appeal. That stay was lifted with this recent High Court judgment. Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) Counterclaim During the High Court hearing, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) argued that the disputed site, referred to as the Juma Mosque, is a Centrally Protected Monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act). The ASI stated that there is no documentation referring to the mosque as an active place of worship after India’s independence. They further noted that terms like “Shahi Masjid” are unsupported by historical, archaeological, or financial records. Legal Implications of the AMASR Act According to the ASI, Sections 4 and 5 of the AMASR Act grant the Government of India the authority to classify any monument of historical importance as protected, and allow the ASI to take over such sites for preservation. Thus, any claim of ownership by the Mosque Committee lacks legal validity under this act. Conclusion: A Case of History, Faith, and Legal Complexity The Sambhal Masjid case is a complex intersection of history, faith, and legal interpretation. The Allahabad High Court’s recent ruling may pave the way for a deeper investigation into the origins of the mosque and its historical significance. As the case unfolds, it will likely continue to stir legal, religious, and political debate across the country. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Sada Law • May 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights Karnataka High Court Declares Power Subsidy Denial to Farmer Societies Unconstitutional, Upholds Cooperative Farming Rights Sada Law • May 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments India Imposes Import Restrictions on Bangladeshi Goods Through Northeast Checkpoints India Imposes Import Restrictions on Bangladeshi Goods Through Northeast Checkpoints Sada Law • May 18, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable Read More »

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

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

Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case

Allahabad High Court Upholds Survey Order in Sambhal Masjid Case, Says Hindu Plaintiffs’ Suit Is Maintainable

Editorial message

Quick links

Contact info