sadalawpublications.com

judicial oversight

Ashok Gehlot Criticises Change in Election Commission Appointment Process

Trending Today Ashok Gehlot Criticises Change in Election Commission Appointment Process BJP Launches Mega Youth Enrolment Drive in Uttar Pradesh Ahead of 2025 Panchayat Polls LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KING STUBB & KASIVA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SOLOMON & CO., ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT EMPLIANCE INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT UTSAV MUKHERJEE LAW OFFICE LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT TRILECT ASSOCIATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SBICAP TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED Supreme Court to Review Sedition-like Provision in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court Empowers Senior Citizens: Lawyers Allowed in Maintenance Tribunals Ashok Gehlot Criticises Change in Election Commission Appointment Process Shristi singh 11 AUG 2025 Former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot criticises the Union government’s decision to replace the Chief Justice of India with the Union Home Minister in the Election Commission of India appointment panel, warning it could undermine the independence of India’s electoral process. Introduction Senior Congress leader and former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot has strongly opposed recent changes to the Election Commission of India appointment process. The new rule replaces the Chief Justice of India with the Union Home Minister on the selection panel — a move Gehlot warns could compromise the body’s independence and public trust in free and fair elections. The Press Conference in Jaipur Speaking at a press meet in Civil Lines, Gehlot addressed journalists and party workers beneath the shade of a neem tree — a scene reminiscent of small, open-air political briefings in the Northeast India.A “Save Democracy, Save Constitution” banner waved behind him as he held up a copy of the amended rules, pointing to the clause that removed judicial representation from the panel. Background: How the Panel Worked Before Until this change, appointments to the Election Commission were made by a three-member panel: The Prime Minister of India (Chair) The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha The Chief Justice of India Now, the Union Home Minister has replaced the CJI, following a bill passed in the Lok Sabha last month. Gehlot’s Key Arguments 1. Loss of Judicial Oversight The judiciary’s presence ensured a non-political, impartial voice in the appointment process. Its removal, Gehlot argues, weakens credibility. 2. Risk of Political Bias With two of three panel members from the ruling party, appointments may prioritise loyalty over merit. 3. Decline in Public Confidence Gehlot stressed that elections depend on trust, warning that perceived bias could damage democratic legitimacy. He urged civil society, retired judges, and scholars to oppose the change and announced public awareness drives across Rajasthan’s urban and rural areas. Government’s Defence Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju defended the reform, citing Parliament’s constitutional authority. He argued that many democracies allow executive-only appointments without judicial involvement. The BJP in Rajasthan accused Gehlot of fear-mongering, claiming Congress fears losing upcoming elections. Public and Political Reactions In Jaipur’s academic circles, law students debated the reform’s constitutional implications. Some supported judicial involvement for checks and balances, while others believed the government should prove the process remains fair. In smaller towns like Sikar and Bhilwara, local Congress units distributed pamphlets explaining the Election Commission’s role and the impact of the appointment change. Lessons from the Northeast In states like Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Mizoram, electoral credibility depends heavily on public trust in the neutrality of election bodies. Even small procedural changes often face civil society scrutiny — a trend analysts believe could emerge in Rajasthan and other states. Expert Opinions Political analyst Sanjoy Hazarika emphasised the dangerous precedent of removing the judiciary from such appointments, warning that reinstating it later would be politically difficult. Professor Meenakshi Joshi of Jawaharlal Nehru University noted that the timing — just months before major elections — adds to public suspicion, regardless of actual fairness. Conclusion Gehlot called the reform a “dangerous experiment”, pledging to raise it in Parliament and the courts. He framed the debate as beyond party politics, stressing that it’s about safeguarding electoral integrity for future generations. As the controversy grows, the change in the Election Commission appointment process could become a defining issue in Rajasthan’s political discourse — much like in the politically aware Northeast, where institutional trust is paramount. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Ashok Gehlot Criticises Change in Election Commission Appointment Process Sadalaw • August 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments BJP Launches Mega Youth Enrolment Drive in Uttar Pradesh Ahead of 2025 Panchayat Polls Sadalaw • August 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court to Review Sedition-like Provision in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sadalaw • August 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Ashok Gehlot Criticises Change in Election Commission Appointment Process Read More »

Madras High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh for Illegal Detention, Reinforces Right to Liberty

Trending Today Madras High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh for Illegal Detention, Reinforces Right to Liberty Supreme Court Clarifies Dowry Death Law: Presumption Only if Dowry Demand Proven Delhi High Court: Social Media Users Liable for Defamation, Freedom of Speech Has Limits Thiruchendur Temple Consecration Dispute: Vidhayahar Challenges HC-Approved Timing in Supreme Court Kerala High Court Empowers Muslim Women: Khula Divorce Valid Without Husband’s Consent Orissa High Court Slams ‘Bulldozer Justice’, Orders ₹2 Lakh Salary Recovery from Tahasildar for Illegal Demolition LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DMD ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SINGHANIA & PARTNERS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT K.L.E. SOCIETY’S LAW COLLEGES JOB OPPORTUNITY AT S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR Madras High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh for Illegal Detention, Reinforces Right to Liberty KASHISH JAHAN 27 June 2025 The Madras High Court has ordered ₹10 lakh compensation for a man’s illegal detention, reaffirming the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 and stressing police accountability in India. A Powerful Verdict Against Arbitrary Arrests In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court has awarded ₹10 lakh in compensation to a man who was wrongfully detained by the police without following due legal procedure. This ruling marks a critical stand for protecting the fundamental right to personal liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Background: Violation of Legal Rights The case involved a petitioner who was taken into custody by the police in connection with a criminal investigation. However, he was neither produced before a magistrate nor informed of the legal grounds for his arrest. Shockingly, he remained in unlawful custody for nearly three days—an outright violation of his constitutional and human rights. Justice G.R. Swaminathan Condemns Misuse of Power Presiding over the case, Justice G.R. Swaminathan condemned the police for their “blatant misuse of power.” He emphasized that “no one in a democratic country should be deprived of liberty without due process.” The court further warned that the responsible officers could face both departmental inquiries and legal consequences. Legal and Constitutional Implications This judgment sends a strong message about the judiciary’s unwavering role in defending civil liberties. It reinforces the legal safeguards against custodial abuse and illegal detention, while also highlighting the need for increased police accountability in India. Conclusion: A Step Toward Justice and Reform The verdict not only brings justice to the victim but also serves as a precedent to prevent similar violations in the future. It reiterates the judiciary’s responsibility in upholding the rule of law and protecting every citizen’s civil liberties. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Madras High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh for Illegal Detention, Reinforces Right to Liberty Sada Law • June 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Clarifies Dowry Death Law: Presumption Only if Dowry Demand Proven Sada Law • June 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court: Social Media Users Liable for Defamation, Freedom of Speech Has Limits Sada Law • June 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Madras High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh for Illegal Detention, Reinforces Right to Liberty Read More »

Orissa High Court Slams ‘Bulldozer Justice’, Orders ₹2 Lakh Salary Recovery from Tahasildar for Illegal Demolition

Trending Today Orissa High Court Slams ‘Bulldozer Justice’, Orders ₹2 Lakh Salary Recovery from Tahasildar for Illegal Demolition LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DMD ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SINGHANIA & PARTNERS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT K.L.E. SOCIETY’S LAW COLLEGES JOB OPPORTUNITY AT S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT EQUATOR LAW CHAMBERS, NEW DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DEEPAK UPADHYAY, DELHI & NOIDA LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT APPAREL GROUP INDIA Supreme Court Probes Air India Crash: Safety Lapses, Legal Action, and Aviation Reforms Karnataka High Court Mandates Full Digitisation of Land Acquisition to Curb Corruption and Delays Orissa High Court Slams ‘Bulldozer Justice’, Orders ₹2 Lakh Salary Recovery from Tahasildar for Illegal Demolition PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 27 June 2025 The Orissa High Court has ordered a ₹2 lakh deduction from a Tahasildar’s salary for an unlawful demolition in Dharmasala, reinforcing constitutional rights and condemning bulldozer justice. Orissa High Court Cracks Down on Bulldozer Justice: Tahasildar Fined ₹2 Lakh for Illegal Demolition In a powerful verdict upholding constitutional safeguards and due process, the Orissa High Court has ordered a ₹2 lakh salary recovery from a Tahasildar responsible for an illegal demolition in Dharmasala, Odisha. The Court condemned the act as part of a “troubling pattern of bulldozer justice” and ruled it a violation of constitutional protections under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Unlawful Eviction Without Due Process The incident involved the demolition of residential structures without issuing prior notices or conducting a fair hearing. The High Court found that eviction notices were served arbitrarily, bypassing the essential legal steps that ensure justice and administrative transparency. Key Legal Violations Identified According to the court, the demolition violated the principles of due process and amounted to arbitrary state action. The judgment emphasized that any demolition must comply with the following procedures: Issuing legally valid show-cause notices Allowing affected residents a proper opportunity to respond Ensuring oversight by appropriate administrative or judicial authorities Court Declares Demolition Notices Illegal The bench declared the demolition notices, specifically Annexure 6, to be legally invalid and ordered an immediate halt to any further evictions until proper legal channels are followed. This ruling aligns with previous directions by the Supreme Court of India, which has consistently criticized demolitions executed without due process. Personal Liability for State Officials Holding state officials personally accountable, the High Court ordered the recovery of ₹2 lakh from the Tahasildar’s salary. This sends a clear message that bureaucrats cannot bypass legal procedures or infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens under the guise of administrative action. A National Pattern of Judicial Pushback This ruling is consistent with a broader trend in Indian jurisprudence. Courts including the Allahabad High Court and Uttarakhand High Court have issued similar rulings, condemning “bulldozer politics” and ensuring that victims of arbitrary demolitions are compensated. Reinforcing Constitutional Values The judgment reinforces key democratic and legal principles: Upholds due process for all constructions, even unauthorized ones Protects against administrative overreach by demanding judicial scrutiny Strengthens rule of law by limiting unchecked executive actions A Landmark Victory for Civil Rights in Odisha This ruling is a significant win for civil liberties and judicial accountability in Odisha. It makes it unequivocally clear: no public servant—regardless of rank—has the authority to circumvent constitutional rights in the name of enforcement. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Orissa High Court Slams ‘Bulldozer Justice’, Orders ₹2 Lakh Salary Recovery from Tahasildar for Illegal Demolition Sada Law • June 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Probes Air India Crash: Safety Lapses, Legal Action, and Aviation Reforms Sada Law • June 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Karnataka High Court Mandates Full Digitisation of Land Acquisition to Curb Corruption and Delays Sada Law • June 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Orissa High Court Slams ‘Bulldozer Justice’, Orders ₹2 Lakh Salary Recovery from Tahasildar for Illegal Demolition Read More »

Supreme Court Slams Misuse of UP Gangsters Act, Demands Accountability from Uttar Pradesh Government

Trending Today Supreme Court Slams Misuse of UP Gangsters Act, Demands Accountability from Uttar Pradesh Government Delhi High Court Orders Ghadi Detergent to Remove Disparaging Surf Excel Remarks from Ads Supreme Court Petition Seeks Immediate Suspension of Air India’s Boeing Fleet Over Safety Concerns Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Listing of Hany Babu’s Bail Clarification Plea in Bhima Koregaon Case Supreme Court Clarifies Azure–PPL Copyright Stay: No Impact on Third Parties Bombay High Court Quashes 306 IPC FIR in Loan-Linked Suicide Case, Cites Lack of Instigation Punjab–Haryana High Court Rejects PIL Against Online Betting Ads, Citing Statutory Remedies Under Gambling Law Supreme Court Reserves Interim Order on Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: Key Legal and Constitutional Highlights HDFC Bank CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan Moves Bombay HC to Quash FIR in ₹2 Crore Bribery Case Filed by Lilavati Trust IPS Officer’s Husband Arrested in ₹7.2 Crore BMC Redevelopment Scam: Mumbai EOW Crackdown Sparks Integrity Debate Supreme Court Slams Misuse of UP Gangsters Act, Demands Accountability from Uttar Pradesh Government KASHISH JAHAN 25 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India has reprimanded the Uttar Pradesh government for misuse of the UP Gangsters Act, raising crucial concerns about preventive detention, civil liberties, and legal reform in India. Supreme Court of India Slams Misuse of UP Gangsters Act In a significant move for the protection of civil liberties, the Supreme Court of India has strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for its rampant misuse of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. This landmark intervention could influence how preventive detention laws are enforced across the country. Widespread Abuse of Preventive Laws in Uttar Pradesh Multiple petitions filed in the Supreme Court exposed an alarming pattern: ordinary citizens—such as farmers, small traders, and activists—were charged under the UP Gangsters Act without any legitimate evidence of involvement in organized crime. Petitioners alleged that the Act had been weaponized to target political opponents, settle personal vendettas, and suppress dissent. Shockingly, data revealed that over 70% of those arrested under the Act were eventually acquitted or had charges dropped due to lack of evidence. Justice Sanjiv Khanna Raises Red Flags The bench, headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, voiced serious concern about the growing misuse of preventive laws. Originally designed to counter organized criminal activities, the law had been distorted to unjustly detain innocent civilians. The court directed the state government to submit a list of all cases filed under the Act over the past five years, along with the justification for each arrest. It also indicated that it may issue formal guidelines to restrict the arbitrary use of such draconian laws. Constitutional Implications and Fundamental Rights This case brings into sharp focus the conflict between national security interests and the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India. According to legal experts, the final ruling may clarify constitutional boundaries on the state’s power to implement preventive detention and provide stronger protections against wrongful incarceration. It also renews urgent calls for police reforms and greater judicial oversight of executive power. What Happens Next? The Supreme Court will revisit the matter in July 2025, at which point it will examine the data provided by the Uttar Pradesh government. Civil rights activists are optimistic that the case will lead to meaningful legal reform and greater transparency in the use of laws that enable preventive detention. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Slams Misuse of UP Gangsters Act, Demands Accountability from Uttar Pradesh Government Sada Law • June 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Orders Ghadi Detergent to Remove Disparaging Surf Excel Remarks from Ads Sada Law • June 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Petition Seeks Immediate Suspension of Air India’s Boeing Fleet Over Safety Concerns Sada Law • June 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Slams Misuse of UP Gangsters Act, Demands Accountability from Uttar Pradesh Government Read More »

President Approves Inquiry Into Former CJI D Y Chandrachud Over Alleged Misuse of Power

Trending Today President Approves Inquiry Into Former CJI D Y Chandrachud Over Alleged Misuse of Power Bokaro Launches Mobile Land Court to Deliver Justice in Rural Jharkhand Supreme Court Questions Centre on Surrogacy Rules 2023: Challenge Highlights Reproductive Rights and Constitutional Concerns Delhi High Court Restrains Unauthorized Use of “TATA” Trademark in Domain Names Bombay High Court Halts BMC Demolition Over Alleged Illegal Structures Amid Procedural Dispute Madras High Court Seeks Tamil Nadu’s Response on Facial Recognition in Policing Amid Privacy Concerns Madras High Court Seeks Tamil Nadu Govt’s Response on PIL Challenging Facial Recognition in Policing Supreme Court Affirms Maternity Leave as Constitutional Right, Even for Third Child Supreme Court Grants Bail to Bengaluru Stampede Executives, Emphasizes Due Process and Fair Arrests Supreme Court Stays ₹317 Crore VAT Demand on Antrix, Safeguarding India’s Space Commerce Growth President Approves Inquiry Into Former CJI DY Chandrachud Over Alleged Misuse of Power KASHISH JAHAN 16 June 2025 The President of India approves a historic inquiry into former Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud over allegations of power misuse. Explore its implications on judicial accountability, ethics, and India’s legal framework. President of India Approves Inquiry Against Former Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud In a groundbreaking and controversial move, the President of India has reportedly authorized an official inquiry into former Chief Justice of India Dr. D Y Chandrachud. This rare development has stirred intense national discourse around judicial accountability and the integrity of the Indian judiciary. The allegations concern the alleged misuse of administrative powers during his tenure, a matter that could significantly reshape discussions about ethics in India’s top courts. Allegations Triggering National Attention The complaint that led to this inquiry is centered around suspected abuse of authority in administrative decisions taken by the former CJI. While specific details remain undisclosed, sources claim the alleged irregularities may have impacted the overall judicial governance system in India. With the President’s nod, the matter now heads towards a potential investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India’s top investigative agency. Judicial Independence vs. Accountability: A Constitutional Dilemma This situation raises pressing questions about the balance between judicial independence and constitutional accountability. India’s Constitution ensures protection for judicial officers, yet this incident highlights the need to scrutinize even the highest offices of justice. If the inquiry proceeds, it would mark the first time a former Chief Justice of India faces an officially sanctioned investigation of this nature — a landmark in the country’s legal history. Implications for India’s Legal and Ethical Framework Should the CBI or another authority initiate a formal probe, this case could set a powerful precedent for post-retirement judicial scrutiny. It challenges the effectiveness of existing constitutional safeguards meant to maintain the independence and dignity of the judiciary, while also ensuring justice is served when misconduct is suspected. The coming weeks may witness vigorous debates within the legal fraternity, with lasting impacts on judicial ethics and public trust in the justice system. A Defining Moment for Judicial Transparency This is a rare test of India’s judicial transparency and constitutional morality. As due process unfolds, maintaining fairness and respect for natural justice will be critical. The outcome of this case may not only determine Dr. Chandrachud’s legacy but also redefine the ethical standards and oversight mechanisms applied to India’s judiciary.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases President Approves Inquiry Into Former CJI D Y Chandrachud Over Alleged Misuse of Power Sada Law • June 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bokaro Launches Mobile Land Court to Deliver Justice in Rural Jharkhand Sada Law • June 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Questions Centre on Surrogacy Rules 2023: Challenge Highlights Reproductive Rights and Constitutional Concerns Sada Law • June 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

President Approves Inquiry Into Former CJI D Y Chandrachud Over Alleged Misuse of Power Read More »

Supreme Court: No Withdrawal of Murder Prosecution Solely Due to Accused’s Political Status

Trending Today Supreme Court: No Withdrawal of Murder Prosecution Solely Due to Accused’s Political Status Supreme Court Judgment on CIC’s Power to Form Benches & Frame Regulations Under RTI Act – Central Information Commission v. DDA, 2024 Allahabad High Court Rejects Relief for Man Over ‘Coward-PM Modi’ Social Media Posts Amid India-Pakistan Ceasefire DY Chandrachud Appointed as Key Authority in Russia-Wintershall Energy Arbitration under Energy Charter Kerala High Court Rules Medical Negligence Is Not Culpable Homicide in Doctor’s Case NHAI Challenges Madras High Court’s Toll Ban on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway in Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Preventive Detention After Bail Grant in Kerala Case Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases Supreme Court: No Withdrawal of Murder Prosecution Solely Due to Accused’s Political Status REHA BHARGAV 09 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India in Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) ruled that serious criminal charges like double murder cannot be withdrawn solely based on the accused’s political standing. Read the full case summary, legal issues, arguments, and judgment. Introduction – Justice Over Political Influence In a landmark judgment dated July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the withdrawal of prosecution in serious criminal cases cannot be justified by the accused’s political image or public standing. The case, Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, highlights the misuse of political power in criminal justice and reinforces the constitutional commitment to speedy trial. Case Background – A 1994 Double Murder in Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh Incident and FIR The case stems from a gruesome double murder on May 30, 1994, where armed assailants opened fire at the complainant’s residence in Jalaun, resulting in the deaths of Jagdish Sharan Srivastava and Rajkumar alias Raja Bhaiya, and serious injuries to others. An FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. Accused and Political Connection The investigation named five accused and two unknown individuals, including Chhote Singh, an MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) from the ruling party. In 2007, the Government of Uttar Pradesh permitted withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh, citing his good public image. This was approved by the Trial Court in 2012. Legal Challenge and Delay in Proceedings The decision to withdraw charges was challenged by the complainant’s mother, who filed a revision petition. However, the Allahabad High Court repeatedly adjourned the matter for over 12 years, eventually dismissing it in 2023, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. Key Legal Issues Can prosecution in serious criminal cases like murder be withdrawn based only on the accused’s public image? Does such a decision violate the rights of victims and their families? How should courts address undue political influence and judicial delay? Arguments Presented Petitioner’s Arguments Unjust Withdrawal: The withdrawal of murder charges against Chhote Singh was unjustified and politically motivated. Violation of Victim Rights: The move undermined the constitutional rights of the victims’ families. Misuse of Section 321 CrPC: It was argued that the withdrawal was improperly allowed under political pressure. Inordinate Delay: The High Court’s prolonged adjournments denied timely justice. Demand for Judicial Scrutiny: Urged the Supreme Court to ensure strict scrutiny over prosecutorial discretion in serious criminal cases. Respondent’s Arguments Legal Use of Section 321 CrPC: The State argued that withdrawal was within the framework of law and in public interest. Accused’s Clean Record: Cited the lack of previous criminal history. No Political Motivation: Denied political interference in the withdrawal decision. Judicial Review Completed: Claimed that both Trial and High Courts had reviewed and accepted the withdrawal. Procedural Delays, Not Malicious: Attributed the delay to procedural issues rather than deliberate obstruction. Supreme Court Judgment – Upholding the Rule of Law In its July 15, 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court of India reversed the Trial Court’s order permitting withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh in the double murder case. The Court emphasized that: Withdrawal of prosecution in serious crimes cannot be based on public image or political influence. The rights of the victims and the severity of the offence must take priority. Judicial processes must be insulated from external or political pressure. The Supreme Court also directed the High Court to expedite pending criminal revision petitions and reaffirmed the importance of judicial vigilance. Conclusion – Strengthening the Criminal Justice System The judgment in Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant precedent reaffirming that justice cannot be compromised for political convenience. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes the need to: Protect the rule of law in India, Uphold victims’ rights in criminal cases, and Prevent the abuse of prosecutorial powers under political influence. This decision serves as a powerful reminder that public interest must never be used as a shield to protect the powerful from facing justice. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court: No Withdrawal of Murder Prosecution Solely Due to Accused’s Political Status Supreme Court: No Withdrawal of Murder Prosecution Solely Due to Accused’s Political Status Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on CIC’s Power to Form Benches & Frame Regulations Under RTI Act – Central Information Commission v. DDA, 2024 Supreme Court Judgment on CIC’s Power to Form Benches & Frame Regulations Under RTI Act – Central Information Commission v. DDA, 2024 Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2

Supreme Court: No Withdrawal of Murder Prosecution Solely Due to Accused’s Political Status Read More »

Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis

Trending Today Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra Condemns Arrest of Sharmishta Panoli, Demands Immediate Release Over Social Media Controversy Supreme Court Petitioned After Alleged Police Assault on Journalists Reporting on Madhya Pradesh Sand Mafia Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Assam’s Deportation Policy on Bangladeshi Infiltration Supreme Court Orders Medical Care for Disabled Rape Survivor Under Victim Compensation Scheme LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF NUNIWAL LAW CHAMBERS Supreme Court Emphasizes Judicial Hierarchy: Contempt Case Against NCDRC Members in Ireo Grace Realtech vs Sanjay Gopinath (2024) Supreme Court Judgment on ED’s Arrest Powers Under PMLA: No Arrest After Special Court Cognizance | Tarsem Lal Case Analysis 2024 Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis REHA BHARGAV 04 June 2025 Explore the landmark Supreme Court judgment in the Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D.K. Gandhi case, clarifying that advocates are not liable for deficiency of services under the Consumer Protection Act. Understand the implications for legal accountability, police procedures, and fundamental rights in India. Introduction On May 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment in the case filed by the Bar of Indian Lawyers, led by President Jasbir Singh Makik (Note: no direct Wikipedia page, so linked to related), against D.K. Gandhi from the Police Station at the National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD). This case addressed important questions around police conduct, procedural fairness, and advocates’ liability under the Consumer Protection Act. Case Background: Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D.K. Gandhi The petition was filed due to alleged procedural lapses and possible human rights violations by police officials at the NICD police station. The Bar of Indian Lawyers challenged the police action, citing concerns over arbitrary conduct, misuse of power, and lack of transparency during enforcement activities related to public health and communicable disease control. Key Legal Issues Violation of Fundamental Rights The petitioner argued that the police violated constitutional protections, specifically the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Allegations of Arbitrary and Malicious Conduct Claims were made that police officials acted arbitrarily and maliciously without following due process or legal protocols. Need for Judicial Oversight and Accountability The petition emphasized the necessity for judicial intervention to ensure transparency and accountability in police conduct. Respondent’s Defense The police defended their actions as lawful and necessary for public safety, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural norms and regulations governing communicable diseases. They denied any misuse of power or arbitrary behavior, stating that all enforcement measures were justified and aimed at maintaining law and order. Supreme Court Judgment Summary After thorough consideration, the Court acknowledged the importance of protecting fundamental rights while recognizing the police’s duty to enforce laws relating to public health. The Court ruled that advocates are not liable under the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency of services, balancing the need for effective law enforcement with constitutional safeguards. The judgment highlights the essential role of judicial oversight in maintaining this balance. Conclusion: Impact and Implications This landmark ruling reinforces the principle that police powers must be exercised lawfully and transparently, particularly in sensitive areas like public health enforcement. It clarifies that advocates cannot be held liable for professional service deficiencies under consumer protection laws. The decision underscores the complementary nature of safeguarding individual rights and maintaining public safety through due process and accountability. 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 Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Timeline in Juvenile Justice Cases: Key Ruling in Child in Conflict with Law vs State of Karnataka Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Supreme Court Rules Compensation Cannot Replace Jail Time in Serious Crimes Under CrPC Section 357 Sada Law • June 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Rules Advocates Not Liable for Deficiency of Services Under Consumer Protection Act – Key Case Analysis 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 »