sadalawpublications.com

Case law

WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Stay of BJP Minister Vijay Shah in Colonel Sofiya Qureshi Case, Ends MP High Court Proceedings Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JURIDICA SOLUTIO LLP, DELHI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JUNIOR ADVOCATE AT SAHALNA ASSOCIATE JOB OPPORTUNITY AT EVARA LEGAL LLP JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF ADITYA BHARAT MANUBARWALA JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS OF MS. SUPRIYA JUNEJA AND MR. ADITYA SINGLA Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ₹229-Crore Gateway of India Jetty Project, Cites Ongoing Bombay HC Review WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach NITU KUMARI 30 May 2025 Explore the WazirX hack of July 2024 that shook India’s crypto market. Understand how the breach happened, its legal implications, and key lessons on cryptocurrency security and digital asset protection. The WazirX Hack: A Wake-Up Call for India’s Crypto Ecosystem On July 18, 2024, a major security breach hit WazirX, India’s leading cryptocurrency exchange. Despite implementing robust protocols, over $230 million (INR 1900 crores) was stolen from one of its main trading wallets. This hack, one of the most significant in Indian crypto history, has sparked widespread concern about digital asset security and legal accountability. What Is Cryptocurrency? Cryptocurrency is a digital form of money used for online transactions. Unlike traditional currency, it is decentralized and operates without a central authority. Cryptocurrencies rely on blockchain technology to record transactions and create new units. Common Cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin (BTC): The most popular decentralized digital currency, launched in 2009. Ethereum (ETH): Known for its smart contracts and native token, Ether. Litecoin (LTC): Similar to Bitcoin, with faster transaction times. Stablecoins: Pegged to real-world assets like the US Dollar. Solana (SOL): Focuses on high-speed and low-cost transactions. Background: The Breach That Shook WazirX WazirX faced a $230 million crypto theft, prompting a petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The hackers gained access to an Ethereum Safe Multisig wallet, raising concerns about the effectiveness of existing security measures. How Did the Hack Happen? Modus Operandi of the Hackers The attackers exploited WazirX’s multi-signature wallet system, which required three WazirX and one Liminal signature for transaction approval. They: Created a fake WazirX account and deposited tokens. Emptied the hot wallet and accessed the cold wallet. Manipulated the smart contract controlling the multisig wallet. Gained full control and withdrew all assets. WazirX had declared roughly $500 million in digital reserves just a month prior, indicating a massive blow to investor confidence. Who Is WazirX? Founded in 2018 by Nischal Shetty, Siddharth Menon, and Sameer Mhatre, WazirX quickly became a top Indian crypto exchange. Known for its compliance-first approach and transparency reports, WazirX had built a reputation for being secure—until this breach. Timeline of the WazirX Hack Date of Breach: July 18, 2024 Assets Lost: ~$230 million Suspected Perpetrators: Lazarus Group, a North Korean hacking organization Affected Users: Over 240,000 wallets WazirX’s Response & Customer Backlash WazirX immediately froze all trading and withdrawals. However, the lack of clear updates and blame game between WazirX and Liminal led to user frustration. Many customers turned to X (formerly Twitter) to demand answers, express outrage, or seek legal help. Legal Pressure Builds CoinSwitch, another Indian exchange, revealed it had funds trapped on WazirX and is now pursuing legal action. Users demanded compensation, but WazirX CEO Nischal Shetty clarified he no longer owns the platform, having sold it in 2019. Who Was Behind the Attack? While there is no concrete proof, cybersecurity experts suspect the involvement of APT-28, also known as the Lazarus Group—a cybercrime ring linked to North Korea and known for large-scale crypto thefts. Forensic Investigation: What Went Wrong? Cybersecurity firm Mandiant conducted a forensic audit of the laptops used for signing transactions. Their report found no evidence of compromise. Still, questions remain about how the attacker bypassed the three WazirX signatures needed to approve transactions. What Could Have Prevented the Hack? Although the technical vulnerabilities aren’t fully known, experts suggest: Tighter access control to smart contracts Enhanced multi-factor authentication Regular third-party security audits Improved cold wallet management protocols Key Takeaways: Lessons from the WazirX Hack Crypto security needs continuous improvement, especially in developing markets like India. Transparency and timely communication are essential for maintaining user trust. There’s a growing need for regulatory oversight to protect digital assets and prevent future attacks. Final Thoughts The WazirX security breach is a critical moment for India’s crypto industry. It reveals the vulnerabilities of even well-regarded exchanges and emphasizes the urgent need for legal restructuring, secure infrastructure, and better industry collaboration. Cryptocurrency platforms must evolve to ensure the safety of user funds and regain investor confidence in a volatile digital asset environment. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach Sadalaw • May 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach Read More »

State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act

Trending Today State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Supreme Court Halts BPSL Liquidation to Allow JSW Steel Review Petition Kerala High Court Seeks State’s Reply on ED Officer’s Bail in ₹2 Crore Bribery Case Bombay High Court Halts Mumbai Airport’s Bid to Replace Turkish Ground Handler Celebi Amid Security Clearance Dispute Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open JOB OPPORTUNITY AT COGNYTE, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV CHAND CHOPRA State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act NITU KUMARI 27 May 2025 Explore the landmark 2024 Supreme Court judgment in State of West Bengal vs Union of India, addressing CBI jurisdiction post-consent withdrawal under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. A critical case on federalism and Article 131 of the Indian Constitution. Introduction On July 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of State of West Bengal vs Union of India, addressing the legality of CBI investigations following the withdrawal of consent by a state government. The case was filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over disputes between the Union and States. This case centers around the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and its powers under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act), especially Section 6, which requires state consent for CBI investigations within state territory. Facts of the Case On November 16, 2018, the Government of West Bengal withdrew the general consent granted to the CBI under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. Despite the withdrawal, the CBI continued to register FIRs and conduct investigations within the state. West Bengal filed a civil suit under Original Suit No. 4 of 2021, seeking a declaration that such actions were unconstitutional. The state requested a judicial restraint on the CBI from investigating within West Bengal without specific consent or court direction. The Union of India argued that CBI’s authority stems from central powers and that withdrawal of consent does not override judicial or statutory permissions. Key Legal Issues Can the CBI operate within a state after withdrawal of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act? Does this dispute fall under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as per Article 131? Is the suit maintainable in light of ongoing proceedings under Articles 136, 226, or 32? Did the CBI’s post-withdrawal actions violate constitutional federalism? Judgment Overview Bench The case was heard by Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta. Case Citation 2024 INSC 502 The Supreme Court held that the suit was maintainable under Article 131 and that disputes involving inter-governmental constitutional matters fall within the Court’s original jurisdiction. Legal Reasoning Ratio Decidendi (Core Legal Principle) Withdrawal of general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act does not invalidate ongoing investigations initiated before the withdrawal. For new FIRs or investigations, the CBI must obtain specific consent or a court order. Federal structure demands mutual respect between Union and State authorities. Obiter Dicta (Additional Observations) The Court emphasized the importance of federal cooperation. Clear guidelines and jurisdictional protocols are essential to prevent conflicts between the Centre and States. Court Directions The CBI must adhere to jurisdictional limits post withdrawal of consent. The Union and States must develop clear procedures to manage CBI investigations fairly and transparently. Federalism requires the autonomy of both Central and State governments to be respected. Conclusion The Supreme Court judgment in State of West Bengal vs Union of India (2024) marks a critical moment in the debate over CBI jurisdiction and federalism in India. The decision reinforces that state consent is essential for new investigations, upholding the spirit of cooperative federalism and legal clarity. The ruling sets a precedent for similar disputes between State and Central agencies, emphasizing the need for balance and constitutional integrity in India’s federal framework. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Read More »

Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act

Trending Today Delhi Judge Transferred Amid Bribery Allegations; Court Clerk Claims ACB Retaliation Plot Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra Arrested for Espionage: No Regrets Over Leaking Info to Pakistan ISI Supreme Court Halts Discharge of Woman IAF Officer Involved in Operations Sindoor and Balakot Amid PC Denial Dispute Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS VC, Cites Abuse of Legal Process Supreme Court Slams Indian Navy for Denying Permanent Commission to Female JAG Officer Supreme Court Declines Sentence in POCSO Case as Victim Now Married to Convict and Opposes Punishment Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act NITU KUMARI 25 May 2025 Discover the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Elfit Arabia vs Concept Hotel Barons Limited, clarifying that cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act do not constitute a continuing cause of action to initiate arbitration. Learn key insights on limitation and arbitration under Indian law. Introduction The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment on July 11, 2024, in the case of Elfit Arabia vs Concept Hotel Barons Limited, addressing critical issues around arbitration and cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). This ruling clarifies that legal proceedings for cheque dishonour do not amount to a continuing cause of action to invoke arbitration, thereby setting an important precedent for arbitration and limitation law in India. Facts of the Case In this dispute, the respondents, Concept Hotel Barons Limited, sought financing from Elfit Arabia and another petitioner for a telecommunications project by Telesuprecon Nigeria Limited (TNL). The repayment terms were outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed initially in 2004 and renewed in 2006. The respondents secured the debt through post-dated cheques. However, fifteen cheques issued in 2011 were dishonoured, leading to a dispute. Despite this, the petitioners did not initiate any legal action immediately. It was only in 2022—eleven years later—that they invoked the MoU’s arbitration clause to commence arbitration proceedings. The respondents challenged this move, arguing that the claim was barred by limitation. Key Legal Issue Does Cheque Dishonour Proceedings Constitute a Continuing Cause of Action to Initiate Arbitration? The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the delay of eleven years in invoking arbitration rendered the petitioners’ claim barred by limitation. Specifically, the Court examined whether proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act create a ‘continuing cause of action’ that allows arbitration to be initiated after such a long lapse of time. Supreme Court Judgment The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, clarified that: Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are criminal in nature and separate from arbitration claims. The institution of cheque dishonour proceedings does not constitute a ‘continuing cause of action’ for the purpose of initiating arbitration. Arbitration and criminal proceedings under Section 138 arise from two independent causes of action. Therefore, arbitration claims must be initiated within the limitation period specified in the MoU or applicable law and cannot be revived by ongoing cheque dishonour proceedings. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to limitation timelines in arbitration claims and ensures that stale claims do not burden the arbitration process. Conclusion The Supreme Court ruling in Elfit Arabia vs Concept Hotel Barons Limited has reaffirmed the critical role of limitation in arbitration under Indian law. By distinguishing between criminal cheque dishonour proceedings and arbitration claims, the Court has preserved the integrity and efficiency of the arbitration mechanism. This judgment serves as a crucial guide for businesses and legal professionals dealing with disputes arising from cheque dishonour and contractual obligations under the NI Act. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Read More »

Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024)

Trending Today Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra Arrested for Espionage: No Regrets Over Leaking Info to Pakistan ISI Supreme Court Halts Discharge of Woman IAF Officer Involved in Operations Sindoor and Balakot Amid PC Denial Dispute Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS VC, Cites Abuse of Legal Process Supreme Court Slams Indian Navy for Denying Permanent Commission to Female JAG Officer Supreme Court Declines Sentence in POCSO Case as Victim Now Married to Convict and Opposes Punishment Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 377 Case, Cites Lack of Marital Rape Recognition Under Indian Law Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) NITU KUMARI 25 May 2025 In the 2024 judgment of M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of compounding in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learn how this decision impacts future legal proceedings and debt recovery. Introduction: A Landmark Ruling on Cheque Dishonour under NI Act On July 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant verdict in the case M/S New Win Export & Anr. vs A. Subramaniam, shedding light on the issue of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court stressed the importance of encouraging compounding of offences, especially when parties are willing to settle disputes amicably. Case Background: Loan, Cheque Bounce, and Legal Proceedings Facts of the Case In 2006, a financial transaction occurred where Appellant No. 2 borrowed ₹5,25,000 from the Respondent. A cheque issued by Appellant No. 1 (a partnership firm) was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The Respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, leading to the conviction of the appellants by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court overturned the conviction, but the High Court later reinstated it. After reaching a post-conviction settlement, the appellants approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the conviction. Legal Issues Before the Court Can a post-conviction settlement nullify a conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act? What is the legal framework for compounding offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure? Supreme Court Judgment: Encouraging Compounding of Offences Key Findings The Supreme Court reiterated that cheque dishonour is a regulatory offence aimed at maintaining trust in financial transactions. It emphasized that courts should prioritize compensatory remedies over punitive measures in cheque bounce cases. In line with Section 147 of the NI Act, the Court accepted the out-of-court settlement as valid compounding and set aside the conviction. Legal Precedent Referenced The Court referred to Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana & Anr. [2024] 5 S.C.R 203, where it had previously invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash a conviction despite the complainant’s resistance to settlement. Legal Principles Highlighted Ratio Decidendi A valid settlement qualifies as compounding under Section 147 NI Act, rendering continued conviction unnecessary. Obiter Dicta The Court underscored that compensatory justice should take precedence over punishment in cheque dishonour cases. Guiding Rules Courts should actively encourage compounding, especially during appellate proceedings, to reduce the backlog of cheque bounce cases. The legitimacy of the settlement should be verified before granting relief. Conclusion: Shaping the Future of Cheque Bounce Litigation This judgment serves as a crucial precedent in cheque bounce litigation. By promoting amicable settlements and compounding, the Supreme Court of India is steering the legal system toward efficient and restorative justice. This is especially significant given the growing number of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act clogging the judicial system. Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners and Businesses Always explore settlement options in cheque dishonour disputes. Courts may quash convictions post-settlement, aligning with the principles of justice and practicality. Compounding of offences can significantly reduce legal burdens and promote faster dispute resolution. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Sada Law • May 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Read More »

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day

Trending Today Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra Arrested for Espionage: No Regrets Over Leaking Info to Pakistan ISI Supreme Court Halts Discharge of Woman IAF Officer Involved in Operations Sindoor and Balakot Amid PC Denial Dispute Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS VC, Cites Abuse of Legal Process Supreme Court Slams Indian Navy for Denying Permanent Commission to Female JAG Officer Supreme Court Declines Sentence in POCSO Case as Victim Now Married to Convict and Opposes Punishment Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 377 Case, Cites Lack of Marital Rape Recognition Under Indian Law Bombay High Court Quashes Non-Bailable Warrant Against Actor Arjun Rampal in Tax Evasion Case Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day NITU KUMARI 25 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR filed against Professor Javed Ahmad Hajam for his WhatsApp status criticizing the abrogation of Article 370. Read the full case summary, judgment, and implications on free speech and dissent under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Background of the Case Professor Javed Ahmad Hajam, a faculty member at Sanjay Ghodawat College in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, originally from Baramulla, Jammu and Kashmir, posted two WhatsApp statuses: “August 5 – Black Day Jammu & Kashmir.” “14th August – Happy Independence Day Pakistan.” “Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy.” These posts led to an FIR under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with promoting enmity between groups based on religion, race, language, etc. After the Bombay High Court refused to quash the FIR, Hajam appealed to the Supreme Court of India. Legal Issue The key legal question was:Should the criminal proceedings against Professor Hajam for his WhatsApp status be quashed under freedom of speech protections in the Indian Constitution? Supreme Court Judgment On March 27, 2024, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment in favor of the appellant. 1. Section 153A IPC Not Applicable The Court ruled that the essential ingredients of Section 153A IPC were not satisfied. There was no intent to incite violence or promote enmity between groups. The status messages did not mention any religion, race, or language. The Court applied the “reasonable person” test, stating that just because some individuals might take offense doesn’t justify criminal prosecution. 2. Right to Freedom of Speech and Dissent The Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed the right to dissent as part of the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Criticizing government actions, including the abrogation of Article 370, is not a criminal act. The Court emphasized that democracy thrives on open debate and criticism, and silencing dissent would be unconstitutional. 3. Goodwill Gesture Misinterpreted Regarding the “Happy Independence Day Pakistan” message, the Court said: Citizens are free to extend goodwill to other nations’ citizens. The appellant’s religion cannot be used to infer criminal intent. Conclusion and Impact The Supreme Court’s ruling to quash the FIR against Javed Ahmad Hajam is a landmark in reinforcing the right to freedom of speech and expression in India.It sends a clear message that dissent is not sedition and that criticizing the government is not a crime under Section 153A IPC. This case sets an important precedent for protecting digital expression and ensures that individuals cannot be punished for peaceful, lawful opinions shared on platforms like WhatsApp. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Sada Law • May 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Sada Law • May 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Read More »

Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act

Trending Today Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 377 Case, Cites Lack of Marital Rape Recognition Under Indian Law Bombay High Court Quashes Non-Bailable Warrant Against Actor Arjun Rampal in Tax Evasion Case Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act NITU KUMARI 23 May 2025 Explore the Supreme Court’s pivotal judgment in Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, addressing the constitutional validity of Section 7(1) of the 2023 Act and the exclusion of the Chief Justice from EC appointments. Learn about the legal implications and the Court’s stance on judicial oversight and electoral fairness. Introduction: The Core of the Constitutional Challenge In a significant constitutional dispute, Dr. Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. brought into question the legality of Section 7(1) of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition challenged the removal of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the Election Commission (EC) selection committee, replacing the judiciary’s role with that of a Union Cabinet Minister. Petitioners argued that this amendment undermines judicial oversight, compromises democratic values, and directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India. Background and Facts of the Case Effective from January 2, 2024, the new Act stipulates a three-member Selection Committee for EC appointments, consisting of the Prime Minister of India, the Home Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP). Key Facts: The LoP received shortlisted candidates’ names shortly before the meeting, limiting time for proper deliberation. Petitioners sought interim relief to halt EC appointments during the constitutional review of the Act. The government defended the Act, citing Parliament of India’s authority and adherence to procedural norms. Key Legal Issues i. Does Section 7(1) of the 2023 Act violate the Constitution by excluding the judiciary from the EC selection process?   ii. Do procedural irregularities breach principles of transparency and fairness in public appointments?   iii. Should interim relief be granted when the constitutionality of a statute is under question?   Arguments Presented Petitioner’s Arguments Erosion of Judicial Oversight: The exclusion of the CJI weakens judicial independence and violates the principles established in the Anoop Baranwal judgment. Procedural Unfairness: The rushed selection process breached norms of deliberative democracy. Violation of Fundamental Rights: Free and fair elections are a core part of the Constitution’s Basic Structure, and this amendment threatens that balance. Doctrine of Proportionality Breach: The shift of power toward the executive branch is disproportionate and unconstitutional. Respondent’s Arguments Legislative Competence: Parliament holds authority under Article 324 to define EC appointment procedures. Judicial Overreach Concerns: The Anoop Baranwal judgment’s directions were temporary, pending legislation. Public Interest: Delays in appointments could impact the 18th Lok Sabha General Elections. Constitutional Trust: Once appointed, officials are presumed to act according to constitutional principles. Supreme Court Judgment Highlights a) Ratio Decidendi Courts must exercise restraint in granting interim relief unless a law is clearly unconstitutional. While acknowledging procedural lapses, the Court refrained from intervention due to imminent electoral timelines. b) Obiter Dicta The selection process must ensure fairness, transparency, and adequate deliberation. Selection Committee members should receive detailed candidate information in advance. c) Guidelines Issued Judicial review is valid only if the law violates Fundamental Rights or the Basic Structure doctrine. The credibility of constitutional appointments relies on transparent processes. Stability during electoral periods takes precedence over temporary administrative flaws. Conclusion: Balancing Governance and Constitutional Values The Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India underscores the delicate balance between legislative prerogative and judicial review. Although procedural deficiencies were identified, the Court prioritized democratic stability and avoided interfering with upcoming elections. This ruling reiterates the complex interplay between constitutional integrity, governance, and electoral fairness. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Sada Law • May 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Sada Law • May 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Verdict on Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India: Challenge to EC Appointment Process & Section 7(1) of 2023 Act Read More »

Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld

Trending Today Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 377 Case, Cites Lack of Marital Rape Recognition Under Indian Law Bombay High Court Quashes Non-Bailable Warrant Against Actor Arjun Rampal in Tax Evasion Case Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld NITU KUMARI 23 May 2025 Explore the landmark Supreme Court judgment on Article 370 and the constitutional validity of Jammu and Kashmir’s reorganization. Learn about the key issues, legal reasoning, and impact on federalism in India. Introduction: What Was Article 370 and Why Was It Important? Article 370 of the Indian Constitution granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. However, in a historic decision on December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Union Government of India’s move to revoke Article 370, a decision that has significantly altered the constitutional landscape of the region. The case was brought before the court through a series of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Background of the Case Key Facts On August 5 and 6, 2019, the Union Government issued Presidential Orders C.O. 272 and C.O. 273, effectively revoking Article 370. These orders amended the interpretation of Article 367, replacing the term “Constituent Assembly” with “Legislative Assembly”, allowing for the abrogation without the original assembly’s consent. This led to the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which split the state into two Union Territories. Several prominent political leaders and activists, including Manohar Lal Sharma, Shakir Shabir, and members of the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, filed petitions challenging the legality of these changes. Legal Issues Raised Constitutional Questions Before the Court Was the abrogation of Article 370 by the Union of India constitutional? Were Presidential Orders C.O. 272 and C.O. 273 legally valid? Was the bifurcation of the state into Union Territories constitutionally sound under Article 3 of the Constitution? Did the Union Government’s actions violate the doctrine of federalism and the rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir? Judgment Summary: What the Supreme Court Decided Legality of the Presidential Orders The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Presidential Orders and the subsequent reorganization. The Court ruled that: The substitution of “Legislative Assembly” for “Constituent Assembly” in Article 367 was valid. The Union Government did not engage in colorable legislation, as the amendment was made transparently and within its constitutional powers. Validity of State Reorganization The Court maintained that the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territories was constitutional. It cited Article 3, which gives Parliament of India the authority to reorganize states for better governance, administration, and national security. Implications of the Judgment This landmark verdict has far-reaching political and constitutional implications. It: Reinforces the central government’s authority to amend the Constitution and reorganize states. Highlights the Union’s role in safeguarding national security and maintaining sovereignty. Sets a precedent for how the balance between state autonomy and central control may evolve in India. Raises important discussions about federalism, especially in regions with unique constitutional status. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s verdict on Article 370 marks a significant chapter in India’s constitutional history. By validating the Union Government’s actions, the Court has redefined the center-state relationship and set a legal benchmark for territorial reorganization. While the ruling closes one chapter, it opens the door for ongoing debates around federalism, autonomy, and democratic governance in India’s diverse political landscape Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Sada Law • May 23, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Verdict on Article 370: Constitutionality of Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Upheld Read More »

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

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

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

Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice

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

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

Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024)

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) NITU KUMARI 21 May 2025 Explore the 2024 Supreme Court of India judgment in Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala, analyzing the extent of the bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act. Learn how this landmark case balances legal safeguards with individual rights. Introduction The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to protect marginalized communities from caste-based discrimination and atrocities. However, the rigid interpretation of Section 18—barring anticipatory bail—has sparked significant legal debate. In Shajan Skaria vs The State of Kerala (2024), the Supreme Court clarified the extent of this bar, reshaping how anticipatory bail is viewed in SC/ST offences. Case Background: Key Facts In May 2023, Shajan Skaria, the appellant, published a video on YouTube accusing P.V. Srinijan, a Scheduled Caste MLA from Kerala, of corruption. A complaint was filed alleging that the video was defamatory and caste-insensitive. Filing of the FIR An FIR was registered on June 9, 2023, under: Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act Section 3(1)(r) – Intentional insult with intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST in public view Section 3(1)(u) – Promoting enmity against SC/ST communities under the SC/ST Act Following his arrest, the appellant’s anticipatory bail plea was rejected by both the Special Judge and the Kerala High Court due to the interpretation of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Legal Issue Before the Court Does Section 18 of the SC/ST Act impose an absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail in offences registered under the Act? Supreme Court Judgment: A Landmark Clarification On August 23, 2024, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and granted anticipatory bail to Shajan Skaria, ruling that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not create a blanket prohibition. Key Takeaways from the Judgment Ratio Decidendi The Court held that anticipatory bail is not absolutely barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Judges must assess whether the complaint prima facie discloses caste-based intent to humiliate. Obiter Dicta The Court highlighted the misuse of SC/ST Act provisions in non-caste-related disputes. It emphasized the importance of context, especially when the accused are public figures or journalists. Guidelines for Lower Courts Conduct a preliminary inquiry to check for prima facie evidence of caste-based discrimination. Consider freedom of expression, especially in politically sensitive or public interest cases. Conclusion This judgment establishes a balanced legal precedent, protecting both: The liberty and rights of the accused, especially in politically or socially sensitive cases. The integrity and intent of the SC/ST Act, ensuring its use remains targeted at actual caste-based offenses. By requiring prima facie evidence of caste-based intent, the Court has curbed potential misuse while maintaining legal safeguards for vulnerable communities. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Can anticipatory bail be granted under the SC/ST Act? Yes. The Supreme Court of India has ruled that anticipatory bail can be granted if the allegations do not establish prima facie caste-based intent. What is the role of Section 18 in the SC/ST Act? Section 18 restricts anticipatory bail for offences under the Act, but it does not impose an absolute ban—courts must evaluate the presence of caste-based motivation. Why is this case significant? It provides a clarifying precedent for handling politically sensitive cases under the SC/ST Act and strengthens the framework for fair trials and free speech. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Read More »