sadalawpublications.com

Case law

Jharkhand High Court: GST Refund of Pre-Deposit Can’t Be Denied Due to Limitation, Cites Violation of Article 265

Trending Today Jharkhand High Court: GST Refund of Pre-Deposit Can’t Be Denied Due to Limitation, Cites Violation of Article 265 Indian Consumer Courts Can Hear Complaints Against WhatsApp, Rules UP Consumer Forum Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act 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 Jharkhand High Court: GST Refund of Pre-Deposit Can’t Be Denied Due to Limitation, Cites Violation of Article 265 NITU KUMARI 11 May 2025   The Jharkhand High Court rules that GST authorities cannot deny a refund of statutory pre-deposit on limitation grounds. Learn how this landmark judgment protects taxpayer rights under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. GST Pre-Deposit Refund Cannot Be Denied on Limitation Grounds, Says Jharkhand High Court  Introduction: A Major Win for GST Assessees In a landmark ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has clarified that GST authorities cannot reject refund claims of statutory pre-deposits merely due to the expiry of the limitation period under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. This judgment reinforces the constitutional protection provided under Article 265 and affirms that such refunds are a statutory right of the assessee. Case Overview: BLA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Jharkhand Case Title: M/s BLA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs State of JharkhandDate of Judgment: 18 April 2025Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, is engaged in the loading and transportation of coal. A Show Cause Notice under Section 74 of the JGST Act, 2017 was issued in January 2021 for a mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filings for September 2019. This resulted in an ex-parte order imposing a liability of ₹16,90,442, including tax, interest, and penalties. To file an appeal, the petitioner deposited 10% of the disputed tax as a statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(b). After winning the appeal, they applied for a refund of the pre-deposit, but the application was rejected as time-barred under Section 54(1). Court’s Observations: Refund Is a Statutory Right The Division Bench emphasized that refund of a pre-deposit is a statutory exercise and cannot be denied using limitation clauses. The Court noted: “There is no dispute that once refund is by way of statutory exercise, the same cannot be retained by the State or Centre by taking aid of a provision which is directory in nature.” The Court highlighted that the use of the word “may” in Section 54 indicates discretion, not a mandatory requirement, and that denying refund based on limitation would be arbitrary and contrary to the Limitation Act, 1963. Rejection Quashed: Refund Must Be Processed The Deficiency Memo dated 06.11.2024, which rejected the refund application, was declared legally unsustainable. The Court ordered the GST Department to process the refund within six weeks, along with any applicable statutory interest. Key Takeaways for Taxpayers 1. Pre-deposit refunds are a statutory right 2. Limitation under Section 54(1) does not apply to such refunds 3. Authorities cannot interpret directory provisions as mandatory 4. Article 265 protects taxpayers from arbitrary retention of funds Conclusion: Upholding Assessee Rights in GST This judgment is a significant precedent for all GST assessees seeking refunds of statutory pre-deposits. It clarifies that such refunds are not subject to the usual GST refund time limits, reinforcing legal clarity and taxpayer protection under Indian tax law. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Jharkhand High Court: GST Refund of Pre-Deposit Can’t Be Denied Due to Limitation, Cites Violation of Article 265 Jharkhand High Court: GST Refund of Pre-Deposit Can’t Be Denied Due to Limitation, Cites Violation of Article 265 Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Indian Consumer Courts Can Hear Complaints Against WhatsApp, Rules UP Consumer Forum Indian Consumer Courts Can Hear Complaints Against WhatsApp, Rules UP Consumer Forum Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Jharkhand High Court: GST Refund of Pre-Deposit Can’t Be Denied Due to Limitation, Cites Violation of Article 265 Read More »

Indian Consumer Courts Can Hear Complaints Against WhatsApp, Rules UP Consumer Forum

Trending Today Indian Consumer Courts Can Hear Complaints Against WhatsApp, Rules UP Consumer Forum Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act 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 Indian Consumer Courts Can Hear Complaints Against WhatsApp, Rules UP Consumer Forum NITU KUMARI 11 May 2025 The Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission rules that Indian consumer courts can hear complaints against WhatsApp under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Learn about the Amitabh Thakur vs WhatsApp case and what it means for digital service users in India. Introduction: A Landmark Decision in Consumer Rights In a significant development for digital consumers in India, the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that WhatsApp can be held accountable under Indian consumer law. This decision emerged from the case of Amitabh Thakur vs WhatsApp, where the court recognized WhatsApp as a service provider operating in India and thus subject to Indian consumer jurisdiction. Background of the Case: Amitabh Thakur vs WhatsApp Who Filed the Complaint? Amitabh Thakur, the National President of the Azad Adhikar Sena and a former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, filed a consumer complaint after experiencing a six-hour service disruption on WhatsApp. Thakur argued that the outage affected his professional activities and sought compensation for the inconvenience caused. Initial Rejection by District Consumer Forum The Lucknow District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission initially rejected the complaint, stating that WhatsApp was not liable under Indian consumer law, and that users like Thakur were not considered “consumers” of the platform. UP State Commission’s Verdict: WhatsApp is a Service Provider in India WhatsApp Subject to Indian Consumer Law A committee led by State Commission President Sushil Kumar and Member Sudha Upadhyay overturned the district commission’s ruling. They emphasized that: “WhatsApp is a service provider company. It provides services in India, and thus, cannot be considered a foreign company exempt from Indian consumer laws.” WhatsApp Users Are Consumers The commission also clarified that anyone using WhatsApp’s features—especially those involving personal data sharing and communication services—qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Final Order: Complaint Must Be Heard Within 90 Days The State Commission instructed the district forum to register Amitabh Thakur’s complaint as a valid consumer grievance. It further directed that the case be concluded within 90 days, as stipulated by the Consumer Protection Act. “The district forum’s earlier decision is set aside. The complaint must now be registered and resolved within the timeframe mandated by law.” Why This Ruling Matters: A Win for Digital Consumer Rights This case sets a powerful precedent. It affirms that digital platforms like WhatsApp are not above Indian consumer protection laws, and users experiencing service failures have the right to seek legal recourse and compensation. Conclusion The Amitabh Thakur vs WhatsApp ruling is a landmark moment in the digital rights movement in India. It opens doors for millions of Indian users to hold global tech platforms accountable when their services fail. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Indian Consumer Courts Can Hear Complaints Against WhatsApp, Rules UP Consumer Forum Indian Consumer Courts Can Hear Complaints Against WhatsApp, Rules UP Consumer Forum Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 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 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Indian Consumer Courts Can Hear Complaints Against WhatsApp, Rules UP Consumer Forum Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act 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 Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act NITU KUMARI 11 May 2025 In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reinforced the rights of senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The case of Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit highlights how elderly parents can legally reclaim property transferred via a gift deed if the recipient fails to provide maintenance and care. Background of the Case: Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit Key Facts On January 23, 1968, Urmila Dixit purchased a property. On September 7, 2019, she transferred ownership of the property to her son via a gift deed. A promissory note signed by the son confirmed he would care for his parents. Upon alleged neglect and abuse, the mother invoked Section 23 of the Act. Legal Issue and Appeal Process Main Legal Questions Can a senior citizen reclaim gifted property under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? Do authorities have the power to evict the occupant and restore possession to the senior citizen? Course of Proceedings The Sub-Divisional Magistrate voided the deed. The Collector upheld the decision. A writ petition was filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Single Judge dismissed it. The Division Bench reversed it. The mother then appealed to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Judgment: Upholding Senior Citizens’ Rights Final Decision On January 2, 2025, a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Chudalayil T. Ravikumar ruled: The gift deed was revoked due to neglect. Under Section 23, authorities can: Declare such transfers void. Evict the transferee. Return possession to the senior citizen. Legal Reasoning and Precedents Purpose-Oriented Interpretation The Court used a beneficial interpretation, citing K. H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob (2019), aligning with the spirit of the Act. Key Requirements Under Section 23 The decision referenced Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2022), stating: The transfer must include a maintenance clause. The transferee failed to honor that responsibility. Conclusion: A Victory for Elderly Rights in India This ruling reaffirms that elderly parents can reclaim gifted property when neglected. It also empowers local authorities under the Act to protect senior citizens through eviction orders and property restoration. Frequently Asked Questions ❓ Can a gift deed be revoked by a senior citizen in India? Yes, under Section 23, if the recipient fails to maintain the parent, the deed can be cancelled. ❓ What powers do authorities have under Section 23? They can revoke property transfers, order eviction, and restore possession to the concerned senior citizen. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 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 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act 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 »

Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College

Trending Today Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Uttarakhand High Court Flags Misuse of ST Certificates Based on Residency in Tribal Areas Jharkhand Government Launches Health Insurance Scheme for Advocates and Families Delhi High Court Directs NLU Consortium to Ensure CLAT Access Is Not Denied Due to Language Barriers India to Conduct Largest Civil Defense Drill Since 1971 Amid Rising Tensions with Pakistan Supreme Court Mandates Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims in Landmark 2025 Ruling: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India Supreme Court on Unlawful Arrest: Vihaan Kumar Case and the Right to Be Informed of Grounds of Arrest Adultery and the Armed Forces: Applicability of the Joseph Shine Verdict Post-Decriminalization Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College NITU KUMARI 07 May 2025   In response to the brutal rape and murder of a doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College in Kolkata, the Supreme Court of India has mandated a national safety protocol for medical professionals. Learn about the case and the measures needed to protect healthcare workers. Introduction: Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment on Doctor Safety The brutal rape and murder of a postgraduate doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata has sparked widespread outrage and raised critical concerns about the safety of medical professionals. On August 9, 2024, the tragic incident brought to light the urgent need for stronger institutional safety measures in healthcare facilities across India. In response to this heinous crime, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark judgment on September 13, 2024, mandating the creation of a national safety protocol for doctors and healthcare workers. This decision has highlighted the systemic flaws in healthcare environments and the vulnerabilities faced by medical professionals, especially women. Background: The Shocking Incident at R.G. Kar Medical College On August 9, 2024, a 31-year-old postgraduate doctor was raped and murdered inside a seminar room at R.G. Kar Medical College in Kolkata. The tragic event occurred during a 36-hour shift, underscoring the harsh working conditions and lack of proper security measures for healthcare workers in Indian hospitals. The incident shocked the nation, and the public outcry led to widespread protests. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) called for a nationwide strike, demanding better safety measures for healthcare workers. The Supreme Court’s Intervention: Ensuring Safety for Medical Professionals Lack of Institutional Safety Measures In its judgment, the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the lack of institutional safety measures in hospitals, which contributed to the tragic death of the young doctor. The Court emphasized that medical professionals, who often work long hours in vulnerable conditions, need enhanced protection against physical and sexual violence. The absence of proper security infrastructure, such as secure rest areas and round-the-clock surveillance, has left medical staff at risk. The Court’s ruling called for comprehensive reforms to safeguard doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers. National Task Force on Doctor Safety As part of its judgment, the Supreme Court established a National Task Force tasked with formulating a national protocol for the safety of medical professionals. The task force’s responsibilities include developing recommendations to address: Preventing violence against healthcare workers, particularly gender-based violence. Providing enforceable safety measures for medical staff, including interns, residents, and senior doctors. Improving working conditions to ensure dignity and safety for all medical professionals. Key Issues Raised in the Case Violence Against Healthcare Workers One of the central issues highlighted in the case was the increasing incidents of violence against medical professionals. Hospitals, where staff work tirelessly to save lives, often become sites of aggression, especially when patients’ families express dissatisfaction with medical outcomes. The lack of security makes healthcare workers easy targets for such violence. Gender-Based Violence in Hospitals The Supreme Court also focused on the growing concern of gender-based violence against female medical professionals. The lack of institutional protocols for addressing such incidents has made it difficult to ensure the safety of female healthcare workers. The Court called for a national policy to tackle these issues head-on and create a safer environment for all medical staff. Court’s Decision: A Call for National Reforms The Supreme Court of India’s decision was clear: India needs a nationwide approach to safeguard the well-being of healthcare professionals. This includes comprehensive security infrastructure in hospitals, mandatory training for hospital staff on dealing with violent situations, and a legal framework to ensure accountability and swift action in cases of violence. Key Actions to Improve Safety for Doctors National Safety Protocol: The Court has mandated that the National Task Force develop a standardized safety protocol for all healthcare workers. Enforceable Guidelines: The task force will establish guidelines to ensure hospitals and medical colleges implement proper safety measures. Gender-Based Violence Prevention: Specific attention will be given to preventing sexual violence and harassment against female medical professionals. Health and Well-Being Standards: Hospitals will need to meet specific standards for the physical and mental health of medical staff, including providing adequate rest and nutrition during long shifts. Conclusion: Protecting Medical Professionals is a National Priority The tragic incident at R.G. Kar Medical College has underscored the critical need for enhanced safety measures for medical professionals. The Supreme Court’s ruling has set the stage for national reforms aimed at protecting doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers from violence and ensuring their dignity and safety in the workplace. As the healthcare sector continues to grow, it is essential that India’s medical institutions prioritize the safety and well-being of their staff. The Supreme Court’s intervention is a step toward creating a healthcare environment where doctors and medical professionals can work without fear of violence and harassment. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Orders National

Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Uttarakhand High Court Flags Misuse of ST Certificates Based on Residency in Tribal Areas Jharkhand Government Launches Health Insurance Scheme for Advocates and Families Delhi High Court Directs NLU Consortium to Ensure CLAT Access Is Not Denied Due to Language Barriers India to Conduct Largest Civil Defense Drill Since 1971 Amid Rising Tensions with Pakistan Supreme Court Mandates Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims in Landmark 2025 Ruling: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India Supreme Court on Unlawful Arrest: Vihaan Kumar Case and the Right to Be Informed of Grounds of Arrest Adultery and the Armed Forces: Applicability of the Joseph Shine Verdict Post-Decriminalization Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery NITU KUMARI 07 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India ruled that courts must prioritize a child’s right to privacy and legitimacy before ordering DNA tests in divorce cases alleging adultery. Learn how this landmark judgment shapes family law and children’s rights in India. Overview of the Case In a landmark judgment dated February 20, 2023, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of a child’s right to privacy and legitimacy, ruling that DNA testing should not be ordered frivolously in divorce proceedings involving allegations of adultery. Case Title: Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun FirodiaCitation: Civil Appeal No. 1308/2023 | 2023 INSC 146Judges: Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B. V. Nagarathna Background of the Case The husband, amid an ongoing divorce case, requested a DNA test to dispute the paternity of the second child born during the marriage, alleging extramarital relations. Both the Family Court and the Bombay High Court approved the request. The wife challenged the decision before the Supreme Court of India. Key Legal Issue Can a DNA test be ordered during divorce proceedings solely to prove adultery? Supreme Court Ruling: Child’s Right to Privacy Is Paramount The Supreme Court ruled that ordering a DNA test in this context violates the child’s right to privacy and legitimacy. The Court emphasized that genetic identity is a sensitive and private matter, protected under broader privacy rights and that a child’s identity should not be arbitrarily questioned in court. “The child’s welfare, dignity, and psychological well-being must take precedence over proving claims of adultery.” Relevant Legal Provisions Cited Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Presumes legitimacy of a child born during a lawful marriage unless non-access is proven. Section 114, Illustration (h): Allows courts to draw adverse inferences when a party refuses to answer questions. Children’s Rights Under International Law The Court referenced Article 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes the child’s right to preserve their identity, including nationality, name, and family relations. Conclusion: Protecting the Child’s Best Interests This decision is a significant step in reinforcing child welfare principles in Indian family law. It highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to balance the rights of parents with the psychological and emotional well-being of the child. According to Justice Ramasubramanian, the child’s perspective must be considered before ordering intrusive procedures like DNA tests, especially when the child’s identity and legitimacy are at stake. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws 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 Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Mandates Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims in Landmark 2025 Ruling: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India Supreme Court Mandates Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims in Landmark 2025 Ruling: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India Sada Law • May 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Uttarakhand High Court Flags Misuse of ST Certificates Based on Residency in Tribal Areas Jharkhand Government Launches Health Insurance Scheme for Advocates and Families Delhi High Court Directs NLU Consortium to Ensure CLAT Access Is Not Denied Due to Language Barriers India to Conduct Largest Civil Defense Drill Since 1971 Amid Rising Tensions with Pakistan Supreme Court Mandates Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims in Landmark 2025 Ruling: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India Supreme Court on Unlawful Arrest: Vihaan Kumar Case and the Right to Be Informed of Grounds of Arrest Adultery and the Armed Forces: Applicability of the Joseph Shine Verdict Post-Decriminalization Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Nationality Under the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Md. Rahim Ali vs. State of Assam (2024) Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rights NITU KUMARI 07 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India granted bail to former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia in the Delhi Liquor Policy Scam case, citing violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Read the full analysis of the 2024 judgment. Introduction: A Landmark Bail Order by the Supreme Court On August 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy Scam. The bail was granted due to prolonged incarceration and procedural delays, which the Court found to be in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution—the right to life and personal liberty. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had arrested Sisodia in 2023, and he remained in custody for over 17 months without the trial commencing. Factual Background: What Triggered the Case? The case originated from allegations that the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–2022 was manipulated to benefit certain private players in the liquor industry. The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi initially flagged these irregularities, prompting ED and CBI investigations. CBI Arrest: February 26, 2023 – on corruption charges ED Arrest: March 9, 2023 – for money laundering under PMLA Section 3 Over 493 witnesses and 1 lakh+ pages of digital evidence were collected. Despite such extensive evidence, the trial had not begun even after 17 months, raising concerns over violation of the right to a speedy trial. Key Legal Issues in the Case 1. Violation of Article 21 Whether prolonged pre-trial detention violated the appellant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. 2. Bail Eligibility Under PMLA and CrPC Whether bail could be granted under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 45 of the PMLA due to procedural delays. 3. Misapplication of the Triple Test Whether the lower courts misapplied the triple test under Section 45 of PMLA in denying bail. Arguments Presented By the Appellant (Manish Sisodia) Cited unreasonable delay in starting the trial. Argued that his detention was punitive due to the case’s complexity. Emphasized legal precedents like Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980), which uphold bail as the norm. By the Respondents (ED & CBI) Claimed the appellant had the power to influence witnesses. Cited strict bail provisions under PMLA Section 45. Blamed procedural delays partially on the defense filing frivolous applications. Supreme Court Judgment Highlights Ratio Decidendi (Binding Legal Principle) The Court ruled that: Procedural delays caused by the prosecution cannot justify indefinite incarceration. Bail must be considered under CrPC Section 439 and PMLA Section 45 in light of Article 21 rights. Obiter Dicta (Judicial Observations) Courts should not treat denial of bail as routine. Delay caused by the large volume of evidence must not infringe constitutional rights. Bail Conditions Set by the Supreme Court The bail was granted with strict conditions: ₹1 crore bail bond and two sureties of the same amount Surrender of passport to the special court Bi-weekly reports to the investigating officer Prohibition on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence Conclusion: Significance of the Judgment The Manish Sisodia bail judgment sets an important legal precedent. It reinforces the balance between stringent statutory provisions like PMLA Section 45 and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. This Supreme Court decision underlines the judiciary’s responsibility in ensuring that procedural delays do not result in unjust incarceration, affirming the legal principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Mandates Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims in Landmark 2025 Ruling: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India Supreme Court Mandates Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims in Landmark 2025 Ruling: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India Sada Law • May 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court on Unlawful Arrest: Vihaan Kumar Case and the Right to Be Informed of Grounds of Arrest Supreme Court on Unlawful Arrest: Vihaan Kumar Case and the Right to Be Informed of Grounds of Arrest Sada Law • May 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rightsv Read More »