sadalawpublications.com

Sada Law

Supreme Court Dismisses Noida Toll Company’s Appeal Against DND Flyway Toll Judgment: Highlights Public Interest

Trending Today Supreme Court Dismisses Noida Toll Company’s Appeal Against DND Flyway Toll Judgment: Highlights Public Interest Justice Surya Kant Appointed as NALSA’s Executive Chairman Effective May 14, 2025 Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Dismisses Noida Toll Company’s Appeal Against DND Flyway Toll Judgment: Highlights Public Interest MAHI SINHA 11 May 2025 The Supreme Court rejects Noida Toll Bridge Company’s appeal, citing unjust enrichment and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learn about the landmark decision. Introduction to the Case The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the appeal filed by Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. (NTBCL) against its earlier ruling refusing to impose toll charges on commuters using the Delhi-Noida Direct Flyway (DND Flyway). The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasizes public interest and accountability in infrastructure projects. Background of the Dispute In December 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s 2016 ruling that nullified the concessionaire agreement favoring NTBCL. The High Court found that NTBCL had already recovered the project’s cost, maintenance, and substantial profits, making further toll collection unjustifiable. The decision followed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Federation of Noida Resident Welfare Association. Key Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Ruling • NTBCL’s Challenge Dismissed The Court dismissed NTBCL’s review petition, citing the “unjust enrichment” of the company at the expense of the public. Justice Surya Kant remarked, “You have already minted enough,” underlining the profiteering nature of the toll collection. • Violation of Constitutional Principles The Court observed that the concessionaire agreement violated Article 14 of the Constitution due to its lack of competitive bidding and arbitrary decision-making by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). • Findings from the Comptroller and Auditor General The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report revealed severe irregularities, including inflated expenses by NTBCL directors, which contributed to the “unrealistic return rates” embedded in the agreement. Arguments Presented in the Court • Defense by Pradeep Puri Pradeep Puri, a former director of NTBCL, argued through his counsel, Advocate Piyush Joshi, that the CAG report’s findings against him were baseless. Joshi contended that Puri had left civil service before the contentious period and had no significant involvement in the decision-making. • NTBCL’s Claim Senior Advocate Dr. Aman Hingorani argued that NTBCL needed to maintain the DND Flyway until 2031. However, the Court rejected this claim, citing the lack of merit in the petition.   Supreme Court’s Stand on Public Accountability The bench emphasized the need for transparency and fair practices in public projects funded by taxpayers. It criticized NOIDA for bypassing tendering processes and granting undue advantages to NTBCL. The ruling stated, “A state’s activities must be free from arbitrary decisions and based on fair, open, and well-defined policies.” Conclusion This landmark ruling reinforces the principles of public accountability and equity in infrastructure projects. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that private enterprises cannot exploit public resources for profit at the cost of citizens. By addressing the misuse of funds and the lack of competitive practices, the judgment sets a critical precedent for future public-private partnerships in India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Dismisses Noida Toll Company’s Appeal Against DND Flyway Toll Judgment: Highlights Public Interest Supreme Court Dismisses Noida Toll Company’s Appeal Against DND Flyway Toll Judgment: Highlights Public Interest Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Justice Surya Kant Appointed as NALSA’s Executive Chairman Effective May 14, 2025 Justice Surya Kant Appointed as NALSA’s Executive Chairman Effective May 14, 2025 Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Dismisses Noida Toll Company’s Appeal Against DND Flyway Toll Judgment: Highlights Public Interest Read More »

Justice Surya Kant Appointed as NALSA’s Executive Chairman Effective May 14, 2025

Trending Today Justice Surya Kant Appointed as NALSA’s Executive Chairman Effective May 14, 2025 Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Justice Surya Kant Appointed as NALSA’s Executive Chairman Effective May 14, 2025 MAHI SINHA 11 May 2025 Discover Justice Surya Kant’s appointment as NALSA’s Executive Chairman, effective May 14, 2025. Learn about his role, leadership transitions in the judiciary, and key updates in India’s legal framework. Justice Surya Kant Takes Over as NALSA Executive Chairman With effect from May 14, 2025, the President of India has appointed Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court as the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). This appointment was announced through a notification by the Ministry of Law and Justice under Section 3(2)(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. What is NALSA’s Executive Chairman Role? Traditionally, the Executive Chairman of NALSA is the second senior-most judge of the Supreme Court. This role involves ensuring the delivery of free legal aid and promoting access to justice across India. Transition of Leadership in the Judiciary The announcement coincides with the retirement of CJI Sanjiv Khanna on May 13, 2025. Following his retirement, Justice BR Gavai, the current Executive Chairman of NALSA, will assume the role of Chief Justice of India on May 14. In addition to his new role, Justice Surya Kant currently serves as the Chairman of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Conclusion The appointment of Justice Surya Kant as the Executive Chairman of NALSA marks a significant step in the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice for all. With his extensive experience and current leadership of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, Justice Kant is well-equipped to uphold NALSA’s mission of providing free and competent legal aid to those in need. This leadership transition also underscores the dynamic shifts within the Indian judiciary, with Justice BR Gavai set to assume the position of Chief Justice of India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Justice Surya Kant Appointed as NALSA’s Executive Chairman Effective May 14, 2025 Justice Surya Kant Appointed as NALSA’s Executive Chairman Effective May 14, 2025 Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Justice Surya Kant Appointed as NALSA’s Executive Chairman Effective May 14, 2025 Read More »

Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020

Trending Today Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 MAHI SINHA 11 May 2025 The Supreme Court is reviewing a PIL pushing for a four-year LL.B. degree in line with NEP 2020. Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenges the five-year law course, citing financial burden and outdated structure. Supreme Court Reviews Plea Against Current Law Course Duration The Supreme Court of India is currently evaluating a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that proposes replacing the traditional five-year LL.B. program with a four-year law degree, as encouraged by the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020). Filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the PIL emphasizes that the extended law degree is financially burdensome and outdated. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case and decided to club it with a related petition concerning a one-year LL.M. program. Advocate Upadhyay Challenges Educational Intent of Five-Year LL.B. According to Advocate Upadhyay, the five-year integrated LL.B. course was designed more for profit than educational benefit. He argued that its duration doesn’t necessarily reflect a student’s legal competence. His petition also recommends the formation of a Legal Education Commission or an Expert Committee—comprising jurists, retired judges, advocates, professors, and scholars—to reassess and reform legal education, including both LL.B. and LL.M. courses. Bar Council of India Yet to Respond to NEP Guidelines Citing the provisions of NEP 2020, Upadhyay claimed that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has yet to align legal education with the recommended four-year structure. He emphasized that this inaction contradicts the policy’s aim of streamlined professional education. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh Raises Socioeconomic Concerns Representing the petitioner, Vikas Singh shared a personal anecdote in court—his yoga instructor is unable to afford a five-year law education for his daughter. He underscored the economic strain caused by prolonged academic timelines. Justice Vikram Nath suggested that the matter be referred to the Bar Council for consultation and agreed to merge the petition with the ongoing one-year LL.M. case, currently before Justice Surya Kant. Previous Attempts to Reduce Law Course Duration This isn’t Upadhyay’s first legal push for education reform. He previously requested a switch from a five-year course to a three-year post-Class 12 LL.B., which the Supreme Court rejected in April 2024. Then-Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud remarked, “We need mature people coming into the profession.” Despite this, concerns over affordability and disproportionate course load persist. The petitioner argues that middle-class and lower-income families bear the brunt of extended education, delaying financial independence for aspiring lawyers by two years. Conclusion: Legal Education Reform at a Crossroads The debate surrounding the duration and structure of legal education in India is gaining momentum. As the Supreme Court deliberates on whether to align the LL.B. program with NEP 2020, the outcome could redefine the academic and professional landscape for future lawyers. Whether or not the Court mandates reform, the discussion highlights an urgent need to balance academic rigor, financial accessibility, and practical relevance in India’s legal education system. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Sada Law • May 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 Read More »

India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump

Trending Today India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump MAHI SINHA 10 May 2025 India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire after U.S. mediation. Former President Donald Trump announced the breakthrough via Truth Social. Get all the key statements, developments, and political reactions. Background: Rising Tensions Between India and Pakistan After days of escalating military tension, including cross-border strikes and drone interceptions, India and Pakistan have officially agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire. The announcement was first made by former U.S. President Donald Trump via Truth Social. Donald Trump Announces Ceasefire on Truth Social On Saturday, Trump posted on Truth Social: “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE. Congratulations to both countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence.” While official confirmation from both nations took time, the statement captured global media attention. India Responds: Ceasefire Confirmed Vikram Misri, Foreign Secretary of India, confirmed that India accepted the ceasefire following a diplomatic outreach from Pakistan. Pakistan’s Statement on Peace and Sovereignty Ishaq Dar, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, also released an official statement: “Pakistan and India have agreed to a ceasefire with immediate effect. Pakistan has always strived for peace and security in the region, without compromising on its sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Key Developments Leading to the Ceasefire Donald Trump announces ceasefire after U.S. mediation Indian missiles targeted Pakistani air bases, according to Pakistan’s military Pakistan responded with retaliatory airstrikes Explosions reported in Srinagar and Jammu Indian Army confirms shooting down enemy drones over Amritsar India: Ceasefire Was a Bilateral Arrangement An Indian official clarified that the ceasefire was negotiated directly between India and Pakistan, with no immediate plans to address broader issues or conduct talks in other forums. U.S. Involvement Was Crucial In a follow-up to Trump’s post, U.S. Vice President Marco Rubio stated that the ceasefire agreement resulted from 48 hours of intensive diplomacy involving the United States. Washington’s active role in mediating this agreement has been widely acknowledged. Conclusion: A Diplomatic Milestone This ceasefire marks a positive step in reducing tensions between two nuclear-armed neighbors. While underlying issues remain unresolved, the agreement offers hope for regional peace and demonstrates the impact of diplomatic engagement. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Sada Law • May 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Sada Law • May 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump Read More »

Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks

Trending Today Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border J&K High Court: Magistrates Can Issue Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Even in Cheque Bounce Cases Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks MAHI SINHA 10 May 2025 A suspected drone debris resembling a bomb was discovered in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, following recent cross-border attacks by Pakistan. Authorities are investigating its origin and possible links to drone raids. Suspicious Object Found Near Kishanghat in Jaisalmer An unidentified bomb-like object was discovered partially buried in the Kishanghat region of Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, on May 9, 2025, shortly after alleged Pakistani drone and missile raids targeting military zones in the state’s western area. Local authorities reported the object was found near a nursery in Jogiyon Ki Basti, directly across from Kishanghat. The debris, suspected to be from a drone, drew immediate attention after a local resident alerted the village Sarpanch, who then informed defense forces. Police & Military Response: Area Secured, Investigation Ongoing Upon arrival, defense personnel quickly secured the site, urging locals to avoid contact with the object. According to police, it remains unclear whether the device was live or destroyed. Preliminary assessments suggest the object could be a fragment of a drone launched from across the border by Pakistan, possibly tied to Thursday night’s border infiltration attempts. Pakistan-India Border Tensions Escalate On Thursday night, Pakistan’s military allegedly conducted multiple drone and munition raids along the western border. The Indian Army confirmed in a statement that the attacks were “effectively repulsed.” In a related update, the Indian Army posted on X (formerly Twitter) that ceasefire violations were reported across the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, further inflaming regional tensions. Operation Sindoor: India Responds to Pahalgam Attack These cross-border incidents follow India’s launch of Operation Sindoor, a targeted military offensive that struck nine terror hideouts in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Pakistan. The operation came in retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack that occurred on April 22, reinforcing India’s zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism originating from across the border. Conclusion: Rising Vigilance Along India’s Western Front As the investigation continues into the object found in Jaisalmer, the incident underscores the increasing use of drones in modern warfare and the volatile situation at the Indo-Pakistani border. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Sada Law • May 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Sada Law • May 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Sada Law • May 8, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Read More »

Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir

Trending Today Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border J&K High Court: Magistrates Can Issue Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Even in Cheque Bounce Cases Operation Sindoor: India Eliminates IC-814 Hijack Mastermind Abdul Rauf Azhar in Precision Strikes Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir MAHI SINHA 10 May 2025 Indian Army jawan Murali Naik, hailing from a tribal hamlet in Sri Sathya Sai district, was martyred in a cross-border firing by Pakistan Army along the Line of Control. Read the full story on his bravery, the community’s grief, and government response. Tragic Loss of Indian Soldier Near LoC A wave of grief swept through Sri Sathya Sai district following the tragic death of Murali Naik, a 27-year-old Indian Army jawan. Naik was killed by heavy firing from the Pakistan Army across the Line of Control (LoC) on May 8, 2025. He hailed from the Kalli Thanda hamlet in Puttagundlapalle village of Gorantla Mandal. Operation Sindoor and Ceasefire Violation The firing occurred shortly after India’s military action, Operation Sindoor, aimed at securing border zones. In retaliation, the Pakistan Army violated the ceasefire agreement and launched a barrage of artillery and mortar attacks. Naik was critically injured and later succumbed despite efforts to evacuate him to New Delhi for emergency care. Humble Roots and a Hero’s Sacrifice Murali Naik, the only son of Mudavath Sriram Naik and Mudavath Jyothi Bai, came from a modest tribal background. Both parents work as agricultural laborers in Gorantla. Local authorities noted his humble beginnings and immense dedication to duty. “His sacrifice will never be forgotten,” said a police officer who visited the grieving village. District Mourns Its Fallen Son The news of Naik’s martyrdom has deeply affected the entire community of Kalli Thanda and its surrounding tribal hamlets. Grief-stricken locals gathered in large numbers to offer their condolences and support to the bereaved family. Government Response and Condolences Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu is scheduled to visit the Sri Sathya Sai district on May 9, 2025. The visit is fully supported by the police administration, and an official ex gratia compensation announcement is expected. Naik’s mortal remains are set to reach his village on the morning of May 10 for final rites. Saluting Murali Naik’s Legacy As India honors its fallen heroes, Murali Naik stands tall among the brave. His dedication and sacrifice symbolize the courage and selflessness of every Indian soldier defending the nation’s borders. Conclusion The tragic loss of Murali Naik is not just a personal blow to his family, but a reminder to the nation of the constant dangers faced by soldiers at the Line of Control. As the nation grieves, it also salutes the valor of this young jawan who gave his life in service to his country. His legacy will live on in the hearts of the people of Sri Sathya Sai district and beyond. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Sada Law • May 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Sada Law • May 8, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims Sada Law • May 8, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Read More »

Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines

Trending Today Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border J&K High Court: Magistrates Can Issue Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Even in Cheque Bounce Cases Operation Sindoor: India Eliminates IC-814 Hijack Mastermind Abdul Rauf Azhar in Precision Strikes Operation Sindoor: India’s Precision Strikes After Pahalgam Terror Attack Raise Cross-Border Tensions Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines NITU KUMARI 09 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India ruled that the 2020 MoEF notification exempting linear projects like roads and pipelines from prior Environmental Clearance was unconstitutional. Learn about the judgment, its impact, and why public consultation matters in environmental law in India. Introduction On March 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Noble M. Paikada vs Union of India, addressing the legality of exemptions granted to certain infrastructure projects from prior Environmental Clearance (EC). This case significantly impacts environmental regulation and public participation in India. Background of the Case The 2006 and 2016 Notifications Under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) introduced the 2006 Notification, which mandated EC for projects classified as Category A and B before construction or expansion. In 2016, the MoEF updated this with a new notification exempting certain activities like dredging and silt removal for construction or maintenance under Item 6, following public consultation. The Controversial 2020 Notification On March 28, 2020, the MoEF issued the 2020 Notification, amending the 2016 rules without public consultation. It allowed extraction of ordinary soil for “linear projects” such as roads and pipelines without requiring EC—prompting legal challenges. Legal Challenge and Key Issue The 2020 amendment was challenged in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and later appealed to the Supreme Court. The core issue: Was Item 6 of the 2020 Notification—granting exemption from EC for soil excavation in linear projects—arbitrary, ambiguous, and unconstitutional? Supreme Court Judgment Highlights Violation of Article 21 The Court ruled the exemption violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to a pollution-free environment. Skipping public consultation made the notification unconstitutional. Ignoring Public Participation The 2020 Notification breached Rule 5(3) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Unlike the 2016 amendment, it failed to invite public objections, undermining the democratic process in environmental policymaking. Arbitrary and Vague Provisions The Court criticized the exemption for being: Ambiguous: Lacking clarity on excavation limits, methods, or oversight. Arbitrary: No justification for exempting linear projects during a COVID-19 lockdown. Unregulated: No authority defined to determine what qualifies as a “linear project.” As a result, Item 6 of the 2020 Notification was struck down. Impact and Significance of the Ruling This ruling reinforces that environmental governance in India must involve transparency and public participation. The judgment strengthens judicial oversight and sets a precedent for: Upholding environmental rights under Article 21 Ensuring public consultation in environmental decision-making Preventing arbitrary exemptions for infrastructure projects Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in Noble M. Paikada vs Union of India underscores the balance between development and environmental protection. By invalidating the EC exemption for linear projects, the Court reaffirmed the need for clarity, regulation, and public engagement in environmental law. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Read More »

Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban

Trending Today Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border J&K High Court: Magistrates Can Issue Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Even in Cheque Bounce Cases Operation Sindoor: India Eliminates IC-814 Hijack Mastermind Abdul Rauf Azhar in Precision Strikes Operation Sindoor: India’s Precision Strikes After Pahalgam Terror Attack Raise Cross-Border Tensions Delhi High Court Sends Dispute Over Netflix’s ‘Emergency’ Film and Coomi Kapoor’s Book to Mediation Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban NITU KUMARI 09 May 2025 Explore the constitutional challenge to demonetisation in India. Understand the Supreme Court’s ruling on the legality of the 2016 currency ban and its implications on the RBI Act, Section 26(2), and the Indian economy. Introduction to the Demonetisation Controversy In 2016, the Indian government implemented a controversial demonetisation policy, invalidating ₹500 and ₹1000 notes to tackle black money, counterfeit currency, and economic subversion. The policy raised significant legal questions, leading to a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court of India. This blog post explores the key aspects of the case Vivek Narayan Sharma vs. Union of India, the legal arguments, and the final judgment delivered on January 2, 2023. Background: The Demonetisation Decision What Was Demonetisation? On November 8, 2016, the Indian government demonetised ₹500 and ₹1000 notes under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The goal was to combat counterfeit money, black market activities, and terrorism funding. However, this sudden move left millions of people struggling with limited access to cash, sparking widespread criticism and legal challenges. The Legal Basis of Demonetisation The RBI Act, particularly Section 26(2), gave the Union Government the power to demonetise any series of banknotes based on recommendations from the Reserve Bank of India’s Central Board. The policy was intended to remove high-value currency notes from circulation, which were believed to facilitate illegal activities. The Constitutional Challenge: Key Issues Raised In the Vivek Narayan Sharma vs. Union of India case, several important legal issues were raised regarding the constitutionality of demonetisation: Does Section 26(2) of the RBI Act Allow for the Demonetisation of All Banknotes?This issue questioned whether the Union Government could demonetise “all” banknotes of a specific denomination or just select series. Excessive Delegation to the Government?Was it constitutionally valid for the RBI to delegate such significant power to the government under Section 26(2)? Was the Decision-Making Process Flawed?Critics argued that the decision-making process behind the demonetisation policy was not transparent or well thought out. Was the Exchange Period Reasonable?The short time frame given for exchanging demonetised notes was questioned for its practicality, especially considering the economic hardship it caused. Supreme Court Ruling: Was Demonetisation Constitutional? On January 2, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict on the matter. The case was heard by a Constitution Bench comprising five judges, with a majority ruling in favor of the Union Government. Majority Judgment (4-1) The majority opinion, authored by Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, held that the demonetisation policy was legally valid under the RBI Act, and that Section 26(2) allowed the government to demonetise all series of banknotes. The judgment ruled that the demonetisation policy met the criteria of proportionality and that the exchange period was reasonable. Dissenting Opinion (1-4) Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented, arguing that Section 26(2) should only allow demonetisation of a specific series, not all series. She emphasized that the Union Government should have passed legislation in Parliament for such a significant economic decision. Implications of the Ruling on Demonetisation Policy Legality and Proportionality The Supreme Court’s ruling confirmed the legality of demonetisation and reaffirmed the government’s authority to make such decisions. The Court found that the policy was proportionate to its intended goals of curbing black money and counterfeit currency. Effect on the Indian Economy While the policy aimed to improve the economy by targeting illicit funds, the immediate effects were mixed. Economic slowdown, liquidity shortages, and hardships faced by the common people led to ongoing debates about its long-term effectiveness. Future Legal Precedents The ruling may have far-reaching consequences for similar legal challenges in the future. Justice Nagarathna’s dissenting opinion may influence how future economic decisions are scrutinized in terms of their constitutionality and procedural fairness. Conclusion: A Landmark Decision in Indian Legal History The Supreme Court’s judgment on the demonetisation case brings clarity to the constitutional validity of economic policies and the powers vested in the Reserve Bank of India. While the decision reaffirmed the legality of the demonetisation policy, it also sparked debates about the appropriate balance between government power and individual rights. As India continues to deal with the consequences of demonetisation, this case will remain a key reference for understanding the intersection of economic policy and constitutional law. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of

Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Read More »

Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia

Trending Today Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border J&K High Court: Magistrates Can Issue Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Even in Cheque Bounce Cases Operation Sindoor: India Eliminates IC-814 Hijack Mastermind Abdul Rauf Azhar in Precision Strikes Operation Sindoor: India’s Precision Strikes After Pahalgam Terror Attack Raise Cross-Border Tensions Delhi High Court Sends Dispute Over Netflix’s ‘Emergency’ Film and Coomi Kapoor’s Book to Mediation Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia NITU KUMARI 09 May 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court of India’s 2023 ruling on the Common Cause v. Union of India case redefined the right to die with dignity, simplified the legal process for living wills, and clarified euthanasia laws in India. Introduction: Upholding the Right to Die with Dignity In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the constitutional right to die with dignity in the Common Cause v. Union of India case. This judgment is a pivotal development in India’s legal and ethical framework regarding euthanasia, advance medical directives (AMDs), and end-of-life care. The Court emphasized that individuals must have the autonomy to make informed decisions about their medical treatment when facing terminal illnesses or irreversible conditions. Case Background: Common Cause vs. Union of India The case was initiated by Common Cause, a registered society, to address the legal vacuum surrounding voluntary euthanasia and the execution of living wills in India. The society argued that the absence of legal provisions violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to die with dignity. Key Legal Provisions Involved Article 21 – Right to life includes the right to die with dignity. Article 14 – Ensures equality before the law, highlighting the need for special provisions for terminally ill patients. Facts of the Case The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court—comprising Justices K. M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C. T. Ravikumar—upheld the validity of Advance Medical Directives, also known as living wills. These directives allow individuals to state in advance that they do not wish to receive life-prolonging treatment in cases of irreversible medical conditions. The judgment also responded to a plea by the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, which sought modifications to simplify the implementation of AMDs due to practical difficulties. Core Legal Issue Should the Supreme Court’s 2018 euthanasia guidelines for terminally ill patients be revised to ease practical implementation challenges? Judgment and Key Highlights 1. Simplified Procedure for Living Wills The Court significantly reduced the involvement of Judicial Magistrates, making it easier for individuals to register and execute AMDs without bureaucratic delays. 2. Recognition of Informed Consent The ruling reiterated that decisions regarding life support must be based on informed consent, protecting patients from unwanted and prolonged suffering. 3. Call for Legislative Action The Court stressed the need for comprehensive legislation to govern euthanasia, ensuring legal safeguards and clear ethical guidelines for medical practitioners. 4. Medical and Ethical Safeguards It was recommended that medical professionals follow strict protocols to prevent misuse of AMDs, safeguarding the interests of vulnerable patients. Impact and Implications of the 2023 Judgment This judgment is a milestone in Indian medical and constitutional law, aligning the country’s legal stance on euthanasia with international human rights standards. It: Reinforces the right to autonomy and dignity at the end of life. Provides a practical roadmap for implementing living wills. Paves the way for future legislation and policy reforms on assisted dying. Conclusion: A Progressive Step Toward Humane End-of-Life Care The Supreme Court’s decision in Common Cause v. Union of India marks a transformative moment in recognizing and protecting the right to die with dignity in India. By simplifying the procedures for living wills and highlighting the importance of individual autonomy and ethical medical practices, the judgment sets a progressive precedent for the future of end-of-life care in India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Read More »

Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained

Trending Today Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border J&K High Court: Magistrates Can Issue Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Even in Cheque Bounce Cases Operation Sindoor: India Eliminates IC-814 Hijack Mastermind Abdul Rauf Azhar in Precision Strikes Operation Sindoor: India’s Precision Strikes After Pahalgam Terror Attack Raise Cross-Border Tensions Delhi High Court Sends Dispute Over Netflix’s ‘Emergency’ Film and Coomi Kapoor’s Book to Mediation Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Supreme Court Orders CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List Revision: Key Questions Removed and Re-Evaluated Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained NITU KUMARI 09 May 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court reshaped the appointment process for the Election Commission of India in the landmark Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India case (2023). Learn what this means for Indian democracy, electoral transparency, and constitutional law. Introduction: Reassessing the Independence of the Election Commission of India The Election Commission of India (ECI) is crucial to ensuring free and fair elections, as mandated by Article 324 of the Constitution of India. However, the method of appointing Election Commissioners lacked statutory clarity—until the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India case. Background of the Case What Prompted the Legal Challenge? In January 2015, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Anoop Baranwal, arguing that the appointment process—where the President of India acts on the advice of the Prime Minister—was unconstitutional. This PIL was consolidated with related petitions by the Association for Democratic Reforms and Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, advocating a more transparent, independent selection process for the ECI. Legal Issues Raised Key Constitutional Questions Does the current method of appointing Election Commissioners violate the Right to Equality under Article 14? Does it compromise the Right to Free and Fair Elections as a basic feature of the Constitution? Arguments from Both Sides Petitioners’ Standpoint Absence of a statutory framework violates constitutional principles. Existing process allows executive dominance, undermining electoral independence. Recommended a selection committee including the Prime Minister of India, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice of India. Respondent’s (Union of India) View Argued under the doctrine of Separation of Powers. Emphasized that the judiciary must not override legislative or executive authority. Claimed the ECI has maintained its independence under the current appointment process. Supreme Court Judgment: A Landmark Decision (March 2, 2023) The five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, delivered a transformative judgment: Directed the formation of a selection committee with the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice of India to recommend ECI appointments until Parliament passes a law. Called for a dedicated Secretariat for the ECI, funded by the Consolidated Fund of India. Emphasized the need for transparency, independence, and institutional accountability. The case is reported as 2023 INSC 190. Impact on Indian Democracy Why This Judgment Matters This decision is a pivotal moment in ensuring the autonomy of the Election Commission. It supports the constitutional framework that democratic institutions must remain independent from executive overreach. Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, former Chief Election Commissioner of India, had previously recommended: Budgetary independence through the Consolidated Fund of India. Establishing a secretariat modeled on that of the Supreme Court of India and Parliament. Conclusion: Strengthening Electoral Integrity in India The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Anoop Baranwal case marks a historic step in reinforcing democratic values. It lays the foundation for a more transparent and balanced electoral system and boosts public trust in democratic institutions. The judgment stands as a major reform in constitutional law in India and ensures that electoral integrity is upheld through a genuinely independent Election Commission. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Read More »