sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Live cases

Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Supreme Court Highlights Lingering Colonial-Era Land Disputes in India CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023) MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Kashak Agarwala 26 September 2025 Introduction The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of allegedly defamatory social media posts and videos related to BJP leader Gaurav Bhatia’s television appearance on a News18 debate. Justice Amit Bansal ruled that if original uploaders fail to delete the content, intermediary platforms such as Google and X (formerly Twitter) must step in and ensure removal. Background of the Case The controversy began when a video clip of Gaurav Bhatia appearing on a News18 debate show hosted by Amish Devgan circulated online. In the clip, Bhatia appeared to be wearing a kurta without pyjamas or pants. Bhatia later clarified that he was wearing shorts, but argued that the content was deceptively presented and circulated without his consent. Bhatia’s Stand Represented by advocate Raghav Awasthi, Bhatia claimed the posts were not satire but outright defamation. He stressed that the material was offensive, vulgar, and ridiculed his physical appearance. Bhatia personally addressed the court, remarking that reputation takes decades to build and should not be destroyed under the pretext of humour. Court’s Observation Justice Bansal held that the posts prima facie caused reputational harm and could not be justified as free speech. The Court emphasized that freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including defamation. The Court directed that defamatory content must be removed promptly. The Defamation Suit Bhatia’s defamation suit names 22 defendants, including: Samajwadi Party’s social media unit Congress leader Ragini Nayak AAP leader Saurabh Bhardwaj Journalist Abhisar Sharma Digital outlets like Newslaundry and News18 Content creators like Rofl Gandhi and Ranting GolaAdditionally, intermediaries Google and X were made parties to ensure compliance with takedown orders. Free Speech vs. Defamation The case revives the debate between safeguarding free expression and protecting individual reputation. While satire and criticism are part of political discourse, the Court stressed that vulgarity and personal attacks cannot be shielded as humour. Political Context The controversy has taken a political turn. BJP leaders allege a coordinated smear campaign by opposition parties, while rivals argue that politicians must tolerate higher levels of criticism. However, Bhatia insists the posts crossed permissible limits, amounting to vulgar defamation rather than satire. What Lies Ahead The High Court’s directions mark a significant precedent in online defamation disputes involving political figures. While Bhatia may secure relief through takedowns, broader questions remain about intermediary liability and the limits of political satire in the digital age. Conclusion The Delhi High Court’s intervention underscores its commitment to protecting reputation in the face of online ridicule. By balancing free speech with restrictions against defamation, the ruling signals that humour cannot be used as a defence for vulgar and defamatory attacks on public figures. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Delhi HC Orders Removal of Social Media Posts on BJP Leader Gaurav Bhatia’s TV Appearance Read More »

Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Supreme Court Highlights Lingering Colonial-Era Land Disputes in India CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023) MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Kashak Agarwala 26 September 2025 Introduction The Delhi High Court has called upon the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) to create a structured policy for providing financial assistance to the families of deceased advocates. The observation arose from a case filed by the mother of a lawyer who died, seeking compensation under the Chief Minister Advocate Welfare Scheme (CMAWS). Background of the Case The petitioner, mother of the deceased advocate, sought the release of ₹10 lakh under CMAWS. The Delhi government denied her claim, stating that the insurance coverage had not been activated before the lawyer’s death. A single judge upheld the rejection, prompting the petitioner to appeal before a Division Bench. Court’s Observations on Welfare Schemes The Bench agreed that CMAWS benefits could not be applied retrospectively. However, it recognized deeper flaws in the existing welfare framework, stressing that many lawyers’ families face severe financial distress after an advocate’s untimely death. The Court referred to the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2021, which provides benefits during a lawyer’s lifetime but leaves dependents inadequately protected after death. Interim Assistance from BCD During proceedings, it was revealed that the BCD had been extending monthly financial support to the petitioner’s family for nearly two years. The Court praised this move as proactive and benevolent but highlighted the lack of a formal policy to ensure continuity. Request for Comprehensive Policy The Bench urged BCI and BCD to frame a formal, structured welfare scheme to prevent advocates’ families from slipping into poverty. It emphasized that bar councils hold not just regulatory responsibilities but also ethical duties to safeguard the profession’s credibility through robust welfare measures. Freedom Granted to Petitioner Disposing of the appeal, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach BCI and BCD for further assistance. It directed the councils to consider her case sympathetically under existing or forthcoming schemes. Greater Implications The ruling underscores judicial concern over the economic vulnerabilities of many lawyers, particularly those at early stages of practice. The Court’s call for reform may pave the way for welfare models similar to those in states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, which already run stronger schemes for advocates’ welfare. Legal Representation For the Petitioner: BS Bagga and Jitender Khurana For BCI: T. Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Sourabh Kumar, Vedant Sood Conclusion The Delhi High Court’s appeal to BCI and BCD reflects a push towards institutionalizing welfare for lawyers’ families. By urging structural reforms, the Court has highlighted the humanitarian and ethical responsibilities of bar councils, paving the way for stronger social security mechanisms in the legal profession. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Delhi High Court Urges BCI and BCD to Frame Policy for Financial Aid to Families of Deceased Lawyers Read More »

Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs”

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Supreme Court Highlights Lingering Colonial-Era Land Disputes in India CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023) MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Kashak Agarwala 26 September 2025 Introduction The Delhi High Court has partially modified its earlier injunction on Patanjali Ayurved’s advertising campaign for its Special Chyawanprash. While the Court permitted the company to use the phrase “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash?”, it prohibited references to Dabur’s “40 herbs”, ruling that such targeted claims crossed into disparagement. Background Dabur, which holds over 60% of the Chyawanprash market share, filed a case against Patanjali alleging that its advertisements demeaned Dabur’s products. In July 2025, Justice Mini Pushkarna partly upheld Dabur’s complaint, instructing Patanjali to drop references like “40 herbs” and remove certain graphics, while allowing the campaign in a trimmed form. Key Developments Division Bench Ruling: Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld the ban on “40 herbs” but allowed Patanjali to retain the larger expression “ordinary Chyawanprash”. Doctrine of Puffery: The Court reaffirmed that exaggeration in comparative advertising is permissible, provided it does not directly disparage a competitor. Consumer Perception: The Bench observed that Indian consumers are discerning and unlikely to abandon trusted brands like Dabur solely due to the term “ordinary”. Issues Comparative Advertising vs. Disparagement: The key question was whether Patanjali’s campaign was puffery or crossed the line into unfairly targeting Dabur. Commercial Free Speech: Patanjali argued that the injunction violated its right to commercial speech and limited permissible exaggeration in marketing. Market Impact: Dabur contended that Patanjali’s campaign misled consumers by suggesting Dabur’s formulations were ordinary or inauthentic. Current Status The Division Bench struck a balance—allowing Patanjali to use “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash?” but restricting any reference to “40 herbs”, which was directly linked to Dabur’s product. The larger dispute, including regulatory aspects and further disparagement claims, remains pending before the trial court. Conclusion The ruling reflects the judiciary’s attempt to strike equilibrium between protecting commercial free speech and preventing misleading or disparaging claims in advertising. While Patanjali secured partial relief, Dabur succeeded in blocking direct references to its product, setting a precedent for future comparative advertising disputes. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Highlights Lingering Colonial-Era Land Disputes in India Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Delhi High Court Allows Patanjali to Use ‘Why Settle for Ordinary Chyawanprash,’ Restrains Reference to Dabur’s “40 Herbs” Read More »

Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Supreme Court Highlights Lingering Colonial-Era Land Disputes in India CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023) MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Kashak Agarwala 26 September 2025 Introduction The Karnataka High Court has permitted the state government to continue its caste-based socio-economic and educational survey, while stressing two safeguards: participation must be voluntary and data must remain confidential. The ruling attempts to strike a balance between the state’s need for policy-relevant data and citizens’ rights to privacy. Background The caste survey began on September 22, 2025, initiated by the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission. Petitioners, including the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Mahasabha, challenged the survey, arguing it was a “disguised census” that infringed on individual privacy, usurped state powers, and violated the Backward Classes Commission Act, 1995. The Union Government supported petitioners, claiming only the Centre has authority to conduct a census under the Constitution. Key Developments A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi declined to halt the survey. The Court ruled: “We see no reason to interdict the current survey. However, we shall ensure that the information obtained shall not be given to any other individual.” The Commission was directed to file an affidavit outlining privacy safeguards. Enumerators must inform citizens that participation is optional; coercion or persuasion is strictly prohibited. Issues Whether the state government has constitutional competence to conduct a caste survey. Whether collection of Aadhaar and personal data violates the right to privacy. Whether the survey amounts to a census, which only the Union can undertake. Court Directions Participation is voluntary; citizens cannot be compelled. Personal details, including Aadhaar, must be collected only with informed consent. Data confidentiality is paramount; leakage or sharing with third parties is prohibited. The Backward Classes Commission must create robust privacy safeguards and submit them on affidavit. Government’s Position Advocate General Sashi Kiran Shetty assured the Court that privacy safeguards were in place. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state, cited Indira Sawhney (1992) and the 105th Constitutional Amendment (2021) to argue that the survey fell within the state’s jurisdiction. The state maintained that the exercise was not a census, but a survey to identify socially and educationally backward classes for welfare planning. Current Status The survey continues under Court-mandated safeguards. Final arguments on the constitutional validity of the survey are scheduled for December 2025. Conclusion The High Court’s interim order reflects judicial restraint: allowing state-led data collection while embedding safeguards for voluntariness and privacy. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that welfare-driven surveys do not become instruments of coercion or political misuse. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Highlights Lingering Colonial-Era Land Disputes in India Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Karnataka High Court Allows Caste Survey to Continue with Voluntary Participation and Data Confidentiality Read More »

Supreme Court Highlights Lingering Colonial-Era Land Disputes in India

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Highlights Lingering Colonial-Era Land Disputes in India CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023) MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Supreme Court Highlights Lingering Colonial-Era Land Disputes in India Kashak Agarwala 26 September 2025 Introduction The Supreme Court of India, while deciding civil appeals concerning land in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, highlighted how colonial-era legal frameworks still shape modern disputes. A three-judge Bench observed the irony that 78 years after independence, Indian courts remain entangled in cases born from foreign land rights systems. Background The case stemmed from land grants made during Portuguese rule in Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The appellants based their claims on the Portuguese legal concept of emphyteusis—a system where individuals could hold conditional ownership while ultimate title remained with the State. The Organizacao Agraria (OA) of 1919 governed land in Nagar Haveli, vesting unclaimed immovable property in the State and granting agricultural lands through perpetual lease rights (Alvaras). Key Developments The appellants challenged a Bombay High Court ruling that had upheld State control over such lands. The Supreme Court noted that appeals attempted to reopen issues long settled, warning against endless litigation. The Bench reiterated the principle of vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt—the law helps the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. It dismissed reliance on waiver/acquiescence or foreign precedents, holding that they carried no binding force in India. Issues Whether colonial land rights under Portuguese law continue to hold validity in modern India. Whether long-dormant claims should be reopened after decades of inaction. The extent to which foreign judgments (like those of Lisbon courts) can influence Indian judicial decisions. Judicial Reasoning Special law prevails: The OA of 1919, being a special law for Nagar Haveli, overrides general land law principles (lex specialis derogat legi generali). Delay doesn’t equal abandonment: The Court clarified that delay alone cannot amount to voluntary surrender of rights. Foreign law not binding: Decisions of Portuguese courts could only serve as persuasive references, not binding precedents. Finality in litigation: Courts must avoid reopening settled disputes based on speculative claims. Current Status The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Bombay High Court’s findings. The appellants’ claims under Portuguese land law were deemed without merit. The judgment affirms State authority over disputed lands in Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Conclusion The ruling underscores how colonial legal frameworks still cast shadows on modern Indian property disputes. By upholding the OA of 1919 and rejecting attempts to revive long-settled issues, the Court balanced historical legacies with legal finality. This decision illustrates India’s continued effort to reconcile its colonial past with its present-day judicial framework. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Highlights Lingering Colonial-Era Land Disputes in India Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Highlights Lingering Colonial-Era Land Disputes in India Read More »

CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023) MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim Shivani Garg 26 September 2025 Introduction On September 25, 2025, a Delhi court directed the police to provide a copy of the FIR to Sakariya, the accused in the assault and attempted rape case against Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta. Despite the police labeling the case as “sensitive,” Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Gaurav Goyal of the Tis Hazari Courts ruled that denying the accused access to the FIR would violate principles of natural justice and due process. Background The alleged incident took place on August 20, 2025, when 41-year-old autorickshaw driver Sakariya gained entry into CM Rekha Gupta’s residence in Delhi under the pretense of filing a grievance. He allegedly attacked the Chief Minister and was subdued by security personnel before being handed over to the police. He was arrested along with his companion, Tehseen Syed, on charges including attempted murder, assaulting a public servant, and obstructing duty. Earlier, on September 22, their judicial custody was extended until October 6, 2025. The attack raised serious concerns over security lapses at the Chief Minister’s residence. Key Developments The accused, Sakariya, requested a copy of the FIR. Delhi Police opposed, citing the case’s classification as “sensitive.” The court ruled that access to the FIR is a right of the accused, as established by the Supreme Court. Magistrate Gaurav Goyal directed that a copy of the FIR be provided within 24 hours. Safeguards were imposed: the accused is barred from sharing, distributing, or publishing the FIR’s contents without court permission. Issues Whether police can withhold an FIR from the accused by labeling a case as “sensitive.” Balancing investigative confidentiality with the rights of the accused. The adequacy of existing safeguards to prevent misuse of sensitive case information. Defense vs. Prosecution Arguments Defense: Argued that withholding the FIR violated natural justice and Supreme Court precedent. The accused cannot prepare a defense without access to the FIR. Prosecution: Claimed disclosure would compromise the investigation but conceded FIR could be shared under confidentiality conditions. Judicial Reasoning The court emphasized that providing the FIR is not a discretionary choice but a statutory and constitutional requirement of criminal jurisprudence. While upholding the accused’s right to access the document, the Magistrate also sought to protect confidentiality by restricting its wider circulation. Current Status The accused will receive a copy of the FIR within 24 hours. Judicial custody of Sakariya and Tehseen Syed continues until October 6, 2025. The case will move forward towards trial preparation. Conclusion The Delhi court’s order highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding due process even in highly sensitive cases. By ensuring FIR access with confidentiality restrictions, the court balanced the accused’s rights with investigative concerns. This ruling reaffirms that labeling a case “sensitive” does not override fundamental legal protections. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

CM Attack Case: Delhi Court Directs Police to Provide FIR Copy to Accused Despite ‘Sensitive Case’ Claim Read More »

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023) MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Kashak Agarwala 26 September 2025 Introduction On September 26, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition seeking registration of an FIR against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and former Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in relation to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019. The Court termed the plea as baseless and frivolous, imposing a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, Advocate Puran Chander Sen. Background The petition stemmed from allegations that the CAA had triggered violence, murders, and injuries across the country. In 2020, Advocate Sen had approached the Govindgarh police station in Alwar, demanding an FIR under IPC Sections 302 (murder) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy). When no action was taken, he moved the magistrate’s court and sessions court, both of which dismissed the plea. He eventually petitioned the High Court. Key Developments Justice Sudesh Bansal’s bench heard the case. The Court held that the allegations were unsupported by evidence, details of victims, or causal links to CAA. The Court questioned the filing in Alwar district, where no incidents were reported. The petition was called “preposterous, effete, and concocted.” A ₹50,000 cost was imposed, payable to the Rajasthan High Court Litigants’ Welfare Fund. The Court gave liberty to the respondents (Modi, Shah, Prasad) and the State to pursue further civil or criminal action against the petitioner. Issues Whether allegations of violence linked to CAA, without evidence, can form the basis of an FIR against top government officials. Whether a practicing advocate can file politically motivated or frivolous criminal petitions without factual backing. The misuse of courts for political or publicity purposes and its impact on judicial integrity. Current Status The petition stands dismissed. Petitioner Advocate Puran Chander Sen is liable to pay ₹50,000 within four weeks. Respondents retain the option to pursue civil or criminal action against him. Conclusion The Rajasthan High Court’s order reinforces the judiciary’s strong stance against frivolous litigation and misuse of legal processes. By imposing costs and criticizing the petitioner, the Court emphasized that unfounded petitions, especially against senior constitutional figures, will not be entertained. The ruling also underlined the responsibility of advocates to uphold professional standards and avoid filing baseless claims that risk undermining public trust in the judicial system. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Sada Law • September 23, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Modi, Shah Over CAA Read More »

Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Chennupati Kranthi Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Supreme Court Judgment (25 July 2023) MD. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Supreme Court Judgment (31 July 2023) Bail Granted in Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana: Supreme Court on Prolonged Undertrial Detention and Article 21 Opportunity of Hearing Before Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Lok Sabha Speaker Engages Two Lawyers for Advice on Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Kashak Agarwala 26 September 2025 Court’s Decision The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected the bail plea of former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain in the case concerning the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) staffer Ankit Sharma during the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna pronounced that “the bail application is denied.” A detailed order copy is awaited. Background of the Case Incident: On February 25, 2020, Ankit Sharma went missing during the riots. His body was discovered the next day in a drain in Chand Bagh near his residence, bearing 51 stab wounds. Police Allegations: Sharma was allegedly beaten and killed by a mob led by Hussain. Political Context: Hussain was suspended by the AAP following the riots and later joined AIMIM. Charges: In June 2020, Delhi Police filed a chargesheet against Hussain and others, accusing them of murder, rioting, criminal conspiracy, dacoity, promoting enmity, and offences under the Arms Act. Trial Status: A trial court framed charges in March 2023 against Hussain and 10 others. Defense Arguments Hussain’s counsel argued that: Several eyewitnesses did not implicate him. Eight co-accused had already been granted bail. He has spent nearly five years in custody, with witnesses already examined, reducing the chance of interference. Prosecution’s Case Represented by Special Public Prosecutor Rajat Nair and Advocate Dhruv Pande, the Delhi Police opposed bail, arguing that: Sharma’s killing was pre-planned and brutal, intended as a warning to law enforcement. Witnesses consistently identified Hussain as the leader of the mob, who incited violence and directed the attack. Hussain held significant local influence, and his release could lead to witness intimidation or evidence tampering. Court’s Rationale While the detailed judgment is awaited, the High Court’s denial of bail suggests concurrence with the trial court’s earlier reasoning: The gravity of the offence (murder with 51 stab wounds). The risk of influencing witnesses or obstructing justice. The impact on public confidence in the judiciary if bail were granted. Way Forward Hussain will remain in judicial custody until the completion of the trial. The case, a high-profile episode of the 2020 Delhi riots, continues to draw national attention as it embodies the communal violence and political tensions that gripped the capital. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Sada Law • September 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Sada Law • September 23, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 Sada Law • September 23, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Tahir Hussain in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Read More »

Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Lok Sabha Speaker Engages Two Lawyers for Advice on Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma Arjun Ram Meghwal Advocates Reform of Section 34 at DAW 2025 Orissa HC Upholds Father’s Duty to Support Unmarried Daughter, Rejects Stereotypes About Educated Wives GST Overhaul from Sept 22: What’s Cheaper, What’s Costlier in Bengaluru Zoho’s Sridhar Vembu Urges H-1B Holders to Return to India Amid U.S. Visa Fee Hike SC Grants Bail to Kerala Priest Edwin Figarez, Suspends Sentence Pending Appeal Delhi High Court on Hate Speech and Political Rallies – 19 September 2025 Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Shivani Garg 23 September 2025 Introduction The Delhi High Court issued a stern reprimand to a Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (SI) for misbehavior inside the courtroom, stressing that law enforcement officers must uphold, not undermine, the dignity of judicial proceedings. Background Case: Rameshwar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Date of Incident: September 22, 2025. Accused Officer: SI Narinder, Delhi Police. Allegations: The officer verbally abused and threatened both counsels (for complainant and convict) and misbehaved with a senior advocate who intervened. Key Developments Court’s Remarks: Justice Arun Monga observed that the officer was “supposed to be a protector of law and not a predator.” Possible FIR: The High Court considered directing registration of an FIR against the SI for his misconduct. Apology Accepted: The SI tendered an unconditional apology, leading the court to withhold immediate punitive action. Written Affidavit: The court ordered the SI to file his apology in writing via an affidavit. Issues Misconduct by Law Enforcement – Erosion of public trust when officers intimidate lawyers in court. Sanctity of Judicial Premises – Ensuring decorum and respect within courtrooms. Balancing Accountability and Forgiveness – Whether an apology suffices in lieu of formal punitive action. Current Status The SI has been directed to submit a written affidavit of apology. No FIR has been registered yet, though the High Court has left the door open for stronger action if misconduct recurs. Conclusion The Delhi High Court’s reprimand sends a clear message that courtroom integrity is non-negotiable. By emphasizing that police officers must act as guardians of the law, not intimidators, the ruling reinforces judicial authority while offering an opportunity for correction through the SI’s written apology. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Sada Law • September 23, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 Sada Law • September 23, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Sada Law • September 23, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Read More »

Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Non-Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards Under the NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquittal in Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Lok Sabha Speaker Engages Two Lawyers for Advice on Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma Arjun Ram Meghwal Advocates Reform of Section 34 at DAW 2025 Orissa HC Upholds Father’s Duty to Support Unmarried Daughter, Rejects Stereotypes About Educated Wives GST Overhaul from Sept 22: What’s Cheaper, What’s Costlier in Bengaluru Zoho’s Sridhar Vembu Urges H-1B Holders to Return to India Amid U.S. Visa Fee Hike SC Grants Bail to Kerala Priest Edwin Figarez, Suspends Sentence Pending Appeal Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 Shivani Garg 23 September 2025 Introduction The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified the legal scope of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that merely attempting to initiate a conversation with a woman—even if unwelcome—does not amount to an offence unless accompanied by criminal force with intent to outrage modesty. Background IPC Section 354: Penalizes assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. Case Details: An FIR was lodged in July 2020 at PGIMS Rohtak after a man approached a woman in a library, greeted her, and tried to engage in conversation despite her refusals. Judicial Concern: The court was tasked with determining whether such behavior qualified as an offence under Section 354. Key Developments Judgment by Justice Kirti Singh: Found that no physical contact or force was alleged in the complaint. The complainant herself testified that she had no grievance against the accused. Court’s Observation: Annoying or socially inappropriate conduct does not, by itself, satisfy the requirements of Section 354. For an act to fall under the section, there must be criminal force plus intent to outrage modesty. Issues Overbroad Use of IPC Section 354 – Risk of misuse if mere unwanted conversation is criminalized. Balance Between Social Conduct and Legal Offence – Distinguishing between socially inappropriate behavior and legally punishable acts. Judicial Process Abuse – Continuing such cases without the legal ingredients would waste judicial resources. Current Status The FIR was quashed by the High Court. The ruling reinforces judicial caution in extending criminal provisions beyond their intended scope. It highlights the need to protect the integrity of legal processes while ensuring women’s safety through appropriate application of law. Conclusion The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment sets an important precedent by drawing a clear line between unwelcome social interactions and criminal conduct under IPC Section 354. While stressing the seriousness of offences that genuinely outrage a woman’s modesty, the court emphasized that the law must not be stretched to cover conduct lacking the essential elements of force or intent. This ensures both fairness to the accused and credibility of the judicial system. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Delhi High Court Reprimands Police SI for Threatening Lawyers in Court Sada Law • September 23, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 Sada Law • September 23, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments SG Tushar Mehta Flags Integrity Crisis in Arbitration, Calls for Parliamentary Intervention Sada Law • September 23, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Attempt to Initiate Conversation with Woman Not Offence Under IPC Section 354 Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote