sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Case law

Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta 3 July 2023 Introduction This case arises from an appeal against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which altered the conviction of the accused from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. The High Court further reduced the sentences to the period already undergone. The appellant, Uggarsain (informant/complainant), challenged this decision, arguing for proportionality and uniformity in sentencing, as the High Court’s approach resulted in glaring disparities in punishment despite similar roles of the accused. Facts of the Case On 7 March 2012 (Holika Dahan eve), Krishan (A-1) insulted Subhash (deceased). Next morning, Brahmjit (Krishan’s son) assaulted Subhash with a danda. Later, a group of accused, armed with weapons, attacked Subhash, Sita Ram (PW1), Uggarsain (the appellant), and Pawan near their residence. Subhash sustained severe head injuries and died after a few days in hospital. FIR was initially filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 323 IPC; after Subhash’s death, Section 302 IPC was added. The Trial Court convicted all eight accused under Sections 148, 323, and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced each accused to the period already undergone, leading to vast discrepancies (from 11 months to over 9 years). Issues of the Case Was the High Court justified in altering the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC)? Was it correct for the High Court to reduce the sentence to “time served,” leading to arbitrary disparities among similarly placed convicts? What constitutes a proportionate and uniform sentence in cases involving group offences? Judgment The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s reasoning as “inexplicable, if not downright bizarre,” noting that sentencing should not create arbitrary disparities when the roles of accused are indistinguishable. Proportionality Principle: Sentences must reflect the seriousness of the crime and be consistent across similarly placed accused. Uniform Sentencing: The High Court erred by treating “sentence undergone” as the basis, disregarding the gravity of the offence and injuries. Factors Considered: Serious head injuries suffered by the deceased (at least six). Presence of deadly weapons. Injuries to multiple members of the complainant party. Final Decision: Krishan and Brahmjit: Sentence not disturbed, as they already served over five years. Other accused (Raju, Parveen, Sunder s/o Amit Lal, Sandeep, Nar Singh, Sunder s/o Rajpal): Sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. They were directed to surrender within six weeks. Appeals were partly allowed. Conclusion The judgment reinforces the importance of consistency, fairness, and proportionality in sentencing, especially in group offences where individual roles cannot be clearly distinguished. The Supreme Court corrected the disparity created by the High Court’s flawed “time served” approach and set a guiding precedent that sentences must correspond to the gravity of the crime and remain uniform across similarly situated convicts. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Sada Law • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Sada Law • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences Read More »

S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Krishna Murari 5 July 2023 Introduction In this significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) is maintainable after the withdrawal of the first one without liberty to file afresh. The Court referred the matter to a Larger Bench to settle the conflicting views that have arisen in previous judgments. Background and Facts The dispute involved a civil property matter where the petitioner initially filed an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order. However, the first SLP was withdrawn without any liberty granted to file afresh. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second SLP on the same cause of action. The respondent opposed its maintainability, contending that such a practice would amount to abuse of process. Issue Whether the withdrawal of an earlier SLP without liberty bars the filing of a second SLP on the same cause of action? Arguments Petitioner’s Arguments The withdrawal of the first SLP does not amount to res judicata. Since the earlier SLP was not adjudicated on merits, the petitioner retains the right to file another SLP. Dismissing the second SLP without hearing would curtail the fundamental right to access justice. Respondent’s Arguments A second SLP on the same issue is not maintainable once the first has been withdrawn. Such repeated filings would lead to forum shopping and delay in finality of litigation. Past judgments have stressed that withdrawal without liberty bars a fresh petition. Judgment The Supreme Court, noting conflicting precedents on the subject, referred the issue to a Larger Bench. It observed: The maintainability of a second SLP after withdrawal of the first without liberty requires authoritative clarification. Earlier rulings have taken divergent views, making judicial consistency necessary. Till such clarification, scrutiny of similar cases should be cautious to avoid abuse of process. Conclusion This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s concern over repeated litigation and abuse of process in SLP filings. By referring the matter to a Larger Bench, the Court aims to ensure uniformity in law on the maintainability of second SLPs, striking a balance between access to justice and the need for finality in litigation. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Read More »

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony Justice Sanjiv Khanna & Justice Bela M. Trivedi 13 July 2023 Introduction This appeal arose from the conviction of Ranjeet Singh under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of Devnath/Deonath on 15 January 2010 in Madanpur forest, Chhattisgarh. The Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment, and the Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinized the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence, especially the delayed testimonies of minor eyewitnesses, and set aside the conviction. Facts of the Case Incident (15 January 2010): Devnath went to the forest to collect firewood. Later, his son Vikas Kumar (PW-1) found him dead with head injuries near a blood-stained stone. FIR Registration: The FIR was lodged the same day by Vikas Kumar. It did not name any accused or mention eyewitnesses—only that “someone” killed the deceased. Investigation: Ranjeet Singh, the appellant, accompanied PW-1 and PW-2 to lodge the FIR. Later, it was alleged he absconded after a sniffer dog traced the blood-stained stone to his house. Eyewitness Statements: Nine days later, three minor girls—Anita (PW-13), Meena (PW-14), and Lali (PW-15)—claimed to have seen the murder. However, their testimony was doubted because of: Close family ties with other key witnesses, Their initial silence, and Contradictory accounts about whether they were even in the forest that day. Motive: The prosecution cited minor quarrels 2–3 months before the incident as the motive. Issue Whether the conviction of Ranjeet Singh under Section 302 IPC was sustainable given: The absence of direct evidence in the FIR, The delayed and doubtful testimonies of alleged eyewitnesses, Weak proof of motive, and Inconsistent claims of abscondence. Judgment Unreliable Eyewitnesses: The Court rejected the testimony of the three minors, finding their accounts doubtful due to delay, family influence, and contradictions. Defective FIR: The FIR did not name any accused or mention eyewitnesses, weakening the prosecution’s case. Weak Motive & Abscondence: Minor quarrels months before were insufficient to establish motive. The alleged abscondence was inconsistent and unproven. Failure of Prosecution: The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction based on circumstantial and doubtful evidence was unsustainable. Final Order: The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and life sentence, acquitting Ranjeet Singh. He was ordered to be released immediately unless required in another case. Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that conviction must rest on clear, consistent, and credible evidence. Mere suspicion, delayed testimonies, or weak circumstantial proof cannot justify upholding a conviction under Section 302 IPC. The judgment highlights the Court’s cautious approach in safeguarding the rights of the accused where prosecution evidence is unreliable. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Read More »

Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Ankita Bhati , Dev Raj Singh Bhati 13 July 2023 Introduction This case deals with the transfer of matrimonial and connected criminal proceedings on the ground of the wife’s convenience. The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principle that in matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience must be given paramount importance while deciding transfer petitions under Section 25 of the CPC. Facts The petitioner–wife sought transfer of two matrimonial cases filed by the husband from Noida (U.P.) to Solan (Himachal Pradesh), where she was residing. She contended that attending proceedings at Noida would cause undue hardship. Issue Whether matrimonial and connected criminal proceedings should be transferred to the place of residence of the wife, applying the principle of “wife’s convenience” in transfer petitions. Held The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petitions, directing that the matrimonial and criminal cases pending at Noida be transferred to the competent court at Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Key Takeaways In matrimonial disputes, wife’s convenience is a paramount consideration for transfer of cases. The Court reiterated its settled position that forcing a wife to travel long distances to contest cases causes hardship and is contrary to the interests of justice. Transfer of connected criminal proceedings ensures effective adjudication and avoids multiplicity of litigation. Conclusion The judgment reinforces the protective approach of the Supreme Court in matrimonial matters by prioritizing the wife’s convenience while deciding transfer petitions. It ensures that women are not burdened with unnecessary hardship in pursuing legal remedies, while also promoting judicial efficiency by consolidating related proceedings before one court. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Read More »

Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Justice M. M. Sundresh, Justice A. S. Bopanna 12 July 2023 Introduction The Supreme Court in Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh set aside a conviction under Sections 8(b) and 15(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The Court held that non-compliance with Section 52A (procedure for inventory, certification, and disposal of seized narcotics) is fatal to the prosecution’s case. Facts of the Case Mangilal was accused of possessing 98 kg of poppy husk. The trial court convicted him under Sections 8(b) & 15(c), sentencing him to 10 years RI + fine. The conviction was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Before the Supreme Court, Mangilal argued that mandatory safeguards under Section 52A were not followed. Issues Whether non-compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act vitiates the conviction? Can reliance solely on oral testimony of police officials sustain conviction without certified inventory/chain of custody? Did the lower courts err in upholding conviction despite serious procedural lapses?  Petitioner’s Arguments No compliance with Section 52A (no Magistrate certification, no proper inventory, no valid samples). Conviction rested only on police testimony, with no independent corroboration. This violates the fair trial guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution.  Respondent’s Arguments Contraband was lawfully seized and recovery was proved. Minor procedural lapses should not override substantive proof. Police testimony is credible and sufficient in narcotics cases. Judgment The Supreme Court acquitted Mangilal, holding that: Section 52A is mandatory; failure to comply renders the case unsustainable. No Magistrate’s certification, no inventory, and non-production of seized material fatally undermined the prosecution. Sole reliance on police testimony is insufficient in serious penal cases. Conclusion The Court reaffirmed that procedural safeguards under NDPS Act are not optional. Strict compliance with Section 52A is necessary to ensure fairness and protect against misuse. Since the prosecution failed to establish integrity of the seized narcotics, Mangilal’s conviction was set aside. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Read More »

The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes.

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Bound to Maintain Wife for Life: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Maintenance Order Against 86-Year-Old Paralysed Veteran Supreme Court of India Allows Death Penalty Challenge Through Article 32 Petitions Telangana High Court Rejects Wife’s ₹90 Lakh Alimony Plea, Dismisses Impotency Claim LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LEXCLAIM ADVOCATES, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT UMBRELLA LEGAL, MUMBAI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT THE OFFICE OF NITIN GOEL, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KOHLI AND KOHLI LAW ASSOCIATES, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT POOVAYYA & CO., BENGALURU & DELHI A New Era of Political Renewal: Young Democrats Challenge the Old Guard THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER v. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Bela M. Trivedi 04 July 2023 Introduction The case The Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs and Another v. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. (2023) concerned the interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The key issue was whether extended limitation and penalties could be invoked in cases where an assessee followed a bona fide classification or valuation method that was later found to be incorrect. Reliance Industries was accused of suppressing facts and misclassifying goods to evade excise duty, while Reliance argued that its actions were guided by prevailing judicial interpretation at the time. Facts of the Case Reliance Industries was alleged to have misclassified/undervalued goods by not including duty       benefits received through transfer of advance licenses from its customers. The Excise Department issued a Show Cause Notice on 28.09.2005, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) proviso of the Central Excise Act. Reliance argued that it followed the view taken by the CESTAT in IFGL Refractories Ltd. (2001),         which held that such duty benefits were not part of assessable value. That view was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2005. The Commissioner confirmed the demand (2006), but the CESTAT allowed Reliance’s appeal (2009), holding there was no suppression and the dispute was revenue-neutral. The Revenue challenged this order before the Supreme Court. Issue of the Case Whether Reliance Industries could be subjected to the extended limitation period and penalties under Section 11A on grounds of alleged suppression of facts, despite acting on a bona fide interpretation supported by CESTAT’s then-prevailing decision? Petitioner’s (Revenue) Arguments Reliance deliberately misclassified goods, causing revenue loss. Suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty justified extended limitation under Section 11A(4). Reliance’s reliance on the CESTAT ruling in IFGL Refractories could not absolve liability once the Supreme Court overturned it. Self-assessment required strict compliance; misstatement or omission, even if based on contrary interpretation, amounts to suppression. Respondent’s (Reliance Industries) Arguments Classification/valuation was based on a bona fide interpretation of law supported by the CESTAT’s binding decision at the relevant time. All relevant information was disclosed in statutory returns; there was no fraud, suppression, or intent to evade. The dispute was revenue-neutral, as customers could claim CENVAT credit. A mere difference of opinion on interpretation cannot justify invoking the extended limitation period. Judgment (Supreme Court, 04 July 2023) The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and upheld the CESTAT order in favor of Reliance. Held that no deliberate suppression, fraud, or misstatement was proved against Reliance. Reliance acted on a bona fide belief based on the CESTAT ruling in IFGL Refractories (2001), which held the field until reversed in 2005. Extended limitation under Section 11A(1) proviso requires deliberate intent to evade duty, not mere adoption of an interpretation later found incorrect. The absence of a specific disclosure requirement for deemed exports in ER-1 returns also meant there was no suppression. Appeals were dismissed as time-barred, and no penalties were applicable. Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed that extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law cannot be invoked in genuine classification or valuation disputes where the assessee acts on a bona fide interpretation supported by judicial precedent. Mere disagreement or later change in legal interpretation does not amount to suppression or fraud. The decision safeguards taxpayers against arbitrary penalties in cases involving genuine interpretative disputes. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Read More »

K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DEEPAK SINGH THAKUR & ASSOCIATES Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Trump Signs Sweeping Economic Orders: Tariffs, Spending Cuts, and Immigration Clampdown China Condemns Gaza Hospital Attack, Calls for Ceasefire UK Asylum Debate Intensifies as Nigel Farage Pushes “Operation Restoring Justice” Australia Expels Iran’s Ambassador After IRGC -Linked Synagogue Arson K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Righ NITU KUMARI​ 20 june 2025 Discover the landmark 2025 Supreme Court of India ruling in K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu that recognizes maternity leave as a fundamental reproductive right, overturning denial based on the two-child policy. Learn about the case facts, legal provisions, and implications for women’s rights in India. Introduction to K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu Case The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on May 23, 2025, in the case of K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu. This case addressed the denial of maternity leave to a female government employee due to the state’s two-child policy. The Court ruled that maternity leave is a crucial part of reproductive rights and cannot be denied on the basis of a two-child norm, affirming women’s constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and personal liberty. Facts of the Case: Denial of Maternity Leave for Third Child K Umadevi, a government school teacher in Tamil Nadu, was denied maternity leave after becoming pregnant with her third child from her second marriage. The state invoked Fundamental Rule 101(a), which restricts maternity leave for female government employees who already have two surviving children. Despite her challenge in the Madras High Court, where she initially won, the Division Bench overturned the decision. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court of India for a final verdict. Key Legal Issues in K Umadevi vs Tamil Nadu Government Is maternity leave a constitutional right linked to reproductive rights or merely a statutory benefit? Can the two-child policy justify denial of maternity leave to female government employees? Does the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 impose any limit on the number of children for which maternity leave can be granted? Should service rules consider children not under the mother’s custody (from a prior marriage) when applying the two-child norm? Relevant Legal Provisions Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to Life and Personal Liberty The Supreme Court examined if denying maternity leave violates Article 21, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. Section 5 & Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 These sections ensure paid maternity leave during pregnancy and after childbirth, and give the Act overriding power over inconsistent laws or service rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Right to Equality The Court highlighted that denying maternity leave based on the number of children without individual consideration is discriminatory and violates the right to equality. Supreme Court Judgment: Upholding Maternity Leave as a Reproductive Right The two-judge bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, set aside the Division Bench’s ruling and upheld the Single Judge’s decision in favor of K Umadevi. The Court emphasized: Maternity leave is an integral part of women’s reproductive rights, encompassing dignity, privacy, health, and equality. Population control policies like the two-child norm must be balanced with the constitutional rights of female employees. Maternity leave must be granted regardless of the number of children, as childbirth is a natural incident of life. Women should be treated with respect and dignity in the workforce, and maternity benefits are essential to support their well-being and work performance. Impact and Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) is a significant victory for women’s reproductive autonomy and labor rights. It clarifies that denying maternity leave based on restrictive population control policies violates constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21. This judgment reinforces maternity benefits as fundamental rights, encouraging fair treatment of women employees across India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Read More »

Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims REHA BHARGAV 20 June 2025 The Supreme Court clarifies that the affinity test is not mandatory for verifying Scheduled Tribe (ST) claims. Documentary evidence remains primary for ST status verification in Maharashtra and across India. Introduction The landmark case of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (March 24, 2023) addresses the critical issue of verifying Scheduled Tribe (ST) status in India, focusing on the “Thakur” community in Maharashtra. This judgment by the Supreme Court of India highlights the role of the affinity test in caste verification and clarifies that it cannot be used as the sole determinant for granting or denying ST status. Background and Facts of the Case The dispute arose from concerns over fraudulent claims to Scheduled Tribe status, which grant access to benefits such as reservation in education, employment, and political representation. Maharashtra’s Scrutiny Committees and Vigilance Cells used the affinity test—a method assessing claimants’ knowledge of tribal customs—to verify ST claims. However, genuine claimants were reportedly rejected based solely on failing this test, despite submitting valid documentary evidence like ancestral caste certificates, school records, and revenue documents. Previous conflicting judgments on the affinity test created confusion, prompting the Supreme Court to clarify the legal position. Key Issue in the Case Is the affinity test a mandatory and conclusive method for verifying Scheduled Tribe claims, or should it only be supplementary when documentary evidence is inconclusive? Arguments Presented Petitioner’s Viewpoint Over-reliance on the affinity test is arbitrary and dismisses valid documentary evidence. Tribal customs evolve due to modernization and urbanization, making affinity tests less reliable. Documentary evidence should have primacy over anthropological tests. The affinity test was sometimes misused without proper justification or recorded reasons. Conflicting judicial precedents necessitate clarity. Improper use of the affinity test leads to wrongful denial of rights for genuine tribals. Respondent’s Viewpoint The affinity test helps prevent misuse of ST certificates by non-tribals. Past judgments support the affinity test as an integral verification tool. Verification should be holistic, combining affinity tests, documentary evidence, and field inquiries. Vigilance Cells have authority to conduct affinity tests and background investigations. Rejection is justified if claimants fail the affinity test and have questionable documentation. Strict scrutiny is essential to protect the reservation system’s integrity. Supreme Court Judgment Highlights Affinity Test Is Not Conclusive: The Supreme Court ruled that the affinity test cannot be the sole or mandatory test for verifying ST claims; it is only a supplementary tool when documentary evidence raises doubts. Primacy of Documentary Evidence: Documentary proof such as caste certificates, historical records, and official documents remain the primary basis for ST status verification. Recognition of Cultural Evolution: The Court acknowledged that tribal customs evolve due to urban migration and social integration, meaning unfamiliarity with traditional customs alone cannot disqualify a claimant. Limited Role of Vigilance Cells: Vigilance Cells should be involved only when necessary and after specific doubts are recorded by Scrutiny Committees. Reconciliation of Conflicting Judgments: The Court clarified earlier contradictory rulings and overruled the idea that failure in the affinity test is fatal to ST claims. Directions for Scrutiny Committees: Committees must prioritize documentary verification, exercise caution with affinity tests, and provide reasoned decisions respecting constitutional rights. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s judgment provides a balanced framework for verifying Scheduled Tribe claims. While the affinity test may serve as a useful supplementary tool, it cannot replace documentary evidence as the foundation for determining ST status. The ruling protects genuine tribal claimants and safeguards the integrity of the reservation system by preventing arbitrary rejections based solely on cultural unfamiliarity. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Against Bengal Police Officers Over 2019 Howrah Lathicharge Incident Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) NITU KUMARI 19 June 2025 In Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court of India ruled that prolonged pre-trial detention under the NDPS Act violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learn how this landmark 2023 judgment balanced personal liberty with statutory bail restrictions. Introduction – Liberty vs. Law in NDPS Bail Cases In a landmark 2023 decision, the Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of prolonged incarceration of an undertrial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioner, Mohd. Muslim, had been held in pre-trial custody for over seven years without trial completion. This case raised urgent constitutional concerns about Article 21—which guarantees personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial. The Court emphasized that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent bail restrictions, cannot be interpreted so rigidly as to violate these fundamental rights. Background and Facts of the Case Arrest and Charges Under NDPS Act In 2015, Mohd. Muslim was arrested for alleged possession and trafficking of a commercial quantity of narcotic substances, a serious offence under the NDPS Act. He remained in custody for over seven years, during which the trial saw minimal progress, with several prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. Despite multiple bail applications, the courts consistently rejected his pleas, citing the strict conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which heavily restrict bail for such offences. Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court The core issue was: Does prolonged pre-trial incarceration under Section 37 of the NDPS Act violate Article 21, and should bail be granted when trials are indefinitely delayed? The petitioner argued that his right to liberty and presumption of innocence had been infringed due to the lack of trial progress, while the State emphasized the seriousness of narcotic offences and the strict statutory bar on bail. Petitioner’s Arguments – Liberty Must Prevail The petitioner contended: Seven years in custody without conviction violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The presumption of innocence must not be defeated by indefinite detention. Section 37’s bail restrictions cannot override constitutional protections. Previous Supreme Court rulings recognize trial delays as valid grounds for bail. Respondent’s Arguments – Public Interest and Statutory Limits The State (NCT of Delhi) argued: The case involved a serious narcotics offence, justifying strict scrutiny. Section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly restricts bail unless the accused is deemed not guilty and unlikely to reoffend. While there were delays, they were procedural and case-specific. Granting bail could weaken the NDPS Act’s deterrent effect. Supreme Court’s Judgment – Bail Granted in the Interest of Justice The Supreme Court, led by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, granted bail and made the following key observations: Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21. The stringency of Section 37 does not override constitutional safeguards. Courts must prioritize liberty when systemic delays prevent fair trial timelines. The judgment stated: “Deprivation of liberty for a single day is one too many… Prolonged incarceration without trial is a travesty of justice.” The Court ruled that bail must be granted when an undertrial has spent more time in custody than many convicts, without any meaningful progress in their case. Conclusion – A Landmark on Bail and Constitutional Rights This judgment in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) is a critical precedent that reaffirms the primacy of personal liberty and fair trial under Article 21. It signals a more humane and constitutionally balanced approach to bail decisions under special criminal laws like the NDPS Act. While recognizing the seriousness of drug offences, the Court made it clear: No statute can justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration. The ruling strengthens the constitutional commitment to justice, liberty, and the presumption of innocence. H2: Key Takeaways for Legal and Constitutional Law NDPS Act Section 37 is not absolute; constitutional rights prevail. Trial delays are a legitimate ground for bail, even in serious offences. Pre-trial detention beyond a reasonable period is unconstitutional. The judgment reinforces the importance of balancing security with liberty. 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 Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on SBI vs Rajesh Agarwal: Borrowers’ Right to Hearing Under SARFAESI Act and RBI Fraud Classification Guidelines Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Read More »

Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Bombay High Court Upholds ₹538 Crore Arbitration Award Against BCCI in Kochi Tuskers Case Supreme Court Slams Karnataka High Court Over Thug Life Ban, Defends Kamal Haasan’s Free Speech Lucknow Court Sentences Woman for Filing False SC/ST Gangrape Case, Highlights Misuse of Protective Laws ED Moves to Fast-Track Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav and Family in IRCTC Scam and Land-for-Jobs Case Chhattisgarh High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation in Custodial Death Case, Cites Police Misconduct Supreme Court Rules Title Deed Essential for Property Ownership in Landmark Judgment Mehul Choksi Sues Indian Government in London Over Alleged Abduction From Antigua Supreme Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Against Bengal Police Officers Over 2019 Howrah Lathicharge Incident JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GREENFINCH LEGAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., ANDHRA PRADESH Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Nitu Kumari 19 June 2025 Supreme Court affirms maternity leave as a reproductive right in K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025), ruling two-child norms can’t deny constitutional maternity benefits. Introduction In a landmark decision on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of K. Umadevi, a government school teacher denied maternity leave under Tamil Nadu’s two-child policy. The ruling emphasized that maternity leave is a constitutional component of a woman’s reproductive rights, outweighing restrictive service rules. Background of the Case Who is K. Umadevi? K. Umadevi was appointed as an English teacher in a Government Higher Secondary School in Tamil Nadu in 2012. Following the end of her first marriage and after remarrying, she became pregnant in 2021. She was denied maternity leave on the grounds that this was her third child. Reason for Denial The Tamil Nadu government cited Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a), which bars maternity leave for employees with more than two surviving children. This rule prompted legal scrutiny over whether administrative service rules can override constitutional rights. Legal Issues Before the Court Can the two-child policy override a woman’s statutory and constitutional rights? Is maternity leave just a service benefit or a fundamental right under Article 21? Does the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 restrict leave based on the number of children? Should the policy apply if the mother does not have custody of earlier children? Relevant Legal Provisions 1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty Guarantees every individual the right to live with dignity. The Court assessed whether denying maternity leave violated this essential right. 2. Article 14 – Right to Equality Protects against discrimination. The case examined whether denying maternity leave to a remarried woman was a violation of equality before the law. 3. Section 5 – Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Provides maternity benefits regardless of the number of childbirths, adjusting only the duration of leave. It does not prohibit the leave itself. 4. Section 27 – Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 States the Act overrides all inconsistent laws, including administrative service rules such as FR 101(a). Court’s Observations and Ruling Denial of Maternity Leave Was Unlawful The Madras High Court Division Bench initially denied relief to Umadevi. However, the Supreme Court Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan overturned this decision, holding that: Maternity benefits are part of reproductive rights. Service rules cannot violate a woman’s right to dignity and equality. State policy and constitutional rights must be interpreted harmoniously. Recognition of Reproductive Rights The judgment affirmed that reproductive autonomy includes: The right to health The right to privacy The right to equality The right to non-discrimination These are essential rights that cannot be overridden by bureaucratic norms. Final Orders by the Court The Supreme Court directed the following: Set aside the Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court. Uphold the Single Judge’s earlier order favoring Umadevi. Mandate that the Tamil Nadu government grant maternity leave as per the Maternity Benefit Act. Conclusion The K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) case is a landmark decision affirming that maternity leave is a fundamental right tied to reproductive freedom. It reiterates that personal liberty and equality under the Constitution cannot be curtailed by arbitrary administrative policies. This judgment sets a strong precedent for upholding women’s rights in India, ensuring that employment policies respect constitutional values and human dignity. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on SBI vs Rajesh Agarwal: Borrowers’ Right to Hearing Under SARFAESI Act and RBI Fraud Classification Guidelines Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan: Interpretation of Remand Date for Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC Sada Law • June 19, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right: K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote