sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

judicial review

Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DEEPAK SINGH THAKUR & ASSOCIATES Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Trump Signs Sweeping Economic Orders: Tariffs, Spending Cuts, and Immigration Clampdown China Condemns Gaza Hospital Attack, Calls for Ceasefire Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 Kashak Agarwala 29 AUG 2025 The Supreme Court of India continues hearing the Presidential reference on deadlines for Governors and the President in granting assent to Bills. Key arguments by the Centre, States, and the Bench highlight crucial constitutional questions under Articles 200, 201, and 361. Introduction The Supreme Court of India on Thursday continued hearing the Presidential reference concerning the timelines and procedures for Governors of India and the President of India in dealing with Bills passed by State legislatures. The matter was heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P. S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurak. The reference was made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India by President Droupadi Murmu, following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in April 2025 regarding the timelines for gubernatorial assent to Bills. Background of the Dispute In April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that although Article 200 does not prescribe a strict timeline for Governors to act on Bills, indefinite delays are unconstitutional. The Court directed that: Governors must decide within a reasonable time. Under Article 201, the President must act within three months. Reasons must be recorded for any delay. This ruling arose from a petition filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, which alleged persistent delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor in granting assent. The Court also clarified that gubernatorial inaction can be judicially reviewed. Dissenting with this interpretation, President Murmu referred 14 constitutional questions to the Court, questioning whether the judiciary can impose such timelines without disturbing the principle of separation of powers. Centre’s Position: Judicial Overreach and Constitutional Immunity Representing the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that judicial time limits on Governors and the President are inconsistent with the Constitution. His key points included: Article 32 and Article 226 petitions cannot be maintained against Governors or the President. Under Article 361, the President and Governors enjoy constitutional immunity. Forcing them into mandamus proceedings would violate their prerogatives. Governors may withhold assent in the larger national interest if Bills potentially conflict with constitutional norms or national policies. Opposition to the Reference: Governors as Titular Heads Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for several States, strongly opposed the reference. He argued: Governors and the President act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in limited constitutional exceptions. Under Article 200, Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent. Their options—grant assent, return the Bill, or reserve it for Presidential consideration—are all subject to ministerial advice. Historical records of the Constituent Assembly make clear that Governors are not meant to act as “super chief ministers”. If a Bill is unconstitutional, it is the **courts—not Governors—**that must strike it down. Bench’s Observations During the hearings, the Bench made several critical observations: CJI Gavai questioned whether allowing indefinite gubernatorial delays would defeat the will of the legislature. He highlighted that the Constitution’s phrase “as soon as possible” indicates prompt action. Justice Narasimha asked whether Governors had any autonomy when faced with potentially unconstitutional Bills. Singhvi maintained that Governors must still act on advice, with unconstitutional laws left to judicial review. The Bench acknowledged that courts must not disturb the constitutional balance, yet expressed concern over the dangers of indefinite inaction. What’s Next? After detailed arguments, the Constitution Bench adjourned the hearing. The matter will resume on Tuesday, focusing on: The scope of Articles 200, 201, and 361. The maintainability of writ petitions against Governors and the President. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for Centre-State relations, constitutional governance, and the role of Governors in India’s parliamentary democracy. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Trump Signs Sweeping Economic Orders: Tariffs, Spending Cuts, and Immigration Clampdown Sadalaw • August 28, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments China Condemns Gaza Hospital Attack, Calls for Ceasefire Sadalaw • August 28, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 Read More »

Chief Justice of India Warns Against Judicial Terrorism Amid Government Overreach Concerns

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Chief Justice of India Warns Against Judicial Terrorism Amid Government Overreach Concerns Supreme Court Rules Unregistered Sale Agreement Cannot Confer Title Despite Later Registration Kerala High Court Upholds Convict’s Right to Support Child’s Education During Parole Madras High Court Orders ‘No Caste, No Religion’ Certificates for Willing Applicants LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION, DELHI INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT DKL ADVOCATES INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBER OF ADV. ADITYA LELE, MUMBAI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ZEUS LAW ASSOCIATES LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FALCONS Supreme Court Rules Aadhaar Not Mandatory for School Admissions, Safeguards Children’s Right to Education Chief Justice of India Warns Against Judicial Terrorism Amid Government Overreach Concerns Prabhat Kumar Biltoria 13 June 2025 Chief Justice BR Gavai highlights the importance of judicial activism without crossing into judicial terrorism. He addresses concerns over judicial overreach while emphasizing the judiciary’s role in protecting India’s constitutional rights. Introduction: Judicial Activism vs Judicial Terrorism Chief Justice of India BR Gavai recently addressed a critical issue in Indian democracy — the fine line between judicial activism and what he terms “judicial terrorism.” Speaking at the Oxford Union during a conversation with Indian students at Trinity College, Oxford, Chief Justice Gavai emphasized that while judicial activism is a vital part of India’s democratic framework, it must not overstep its boundaries. Judicial Overreach and Government Concerns In the backdrop of government accusations of judicial overreach, Chief Justice Gavai clarified the judiciary’s role. He warned against courts exceeding their mandate, stating, “Judicial activism is here to stay. However, judicial activism must not devolve into judicial terrorism.” Gavai explained that judicial intervention is justified only in exceptional circumstances, such as when laws violate the Constitution of India’s basic structure or infringe upon fundamental rights. When Should Judicial Review Be Applied? Chief Justice Gavai stressed that judicial review should be exercised judiciously and sparingly. It is appropriate only when: A statute conflicts directly with fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution A law violates the basic structure of the Constitution Legislation is manifestly discriminatory or arbitrary This limited but crucial role safeguards citizens’ rights while maintaining the balance of power among the judiciary, legislature, and executive. Insights from Justice Surya Kant on Judicial Restraint Echoing Chief Justice Gavai’s caution, Justice Surya Kant, in his keynote speech at the Envision India Conclave, highlighted the importance of respecting the legislature’s role. Kant remarked, “Courts must not override the people’s will but should facilitate democratic dialogue, protect the vulnerable, and uphold the rule of law even in politically uncertain times.” Both jurists agree that judicial overreach threatens this delicate balance of power. The Constitution: A Quiet Revolution for Justice and Equality Chief Justice Gavai, the second Dalit and first Buddhist to lead India’s judiciary, called the Constitution a “quiet revolution etched in ink.” He praised its transformative power, which guarantees rights and uplifts historically oppressed communities. This view underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to protect and empower all citizens. A Call to Indian Students Abroad: Return and Build Bharat Addressing Indian students studying in the UK, Chief Justice Gavai urged them to return home and contribute to nation-building. “Your only attraction is that once you have finished your studies, you do not stay here,” he said. “Return to India and help make Bharat a robust global power. Bharat needs you.” Conclusion: Upholding Democracy Through Balanced Judicial Action The comments from Chief Justice BR Gavai highlight the critical balance required between judicial activism and judicial restraint in India’s democracy. While the judiciary must remain vigilant in protecting constitutional rights, it should avoid overreach that disrupts democratic governance. As India moves forward, this balance will be essential to safeguarding justice, equality, and the rule of law. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Mandates “Support Persons” for Child Victims Under POCSO Act in Bachpan Bachao Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Section 6A Unconstitutional with Retrospective Effect in CBI v. R.R. Kishore Judgment Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Cancellation of Default Bail After Chargesheet Filing in Serious Offence Cases – State Through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy (2023) Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Chief Justice of India Warns Against Judicial Terrorism Amid Government Overreach Concerns Read More »

Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban

Leave a Comment / 2025, Case law /

Trending Today Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border J&K High Court: Magistrates Can Issue Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Even in Cheque Bounce Cases Operation Sindoor: India Eliminates IC-814 Hijack Mastermind Abdul Rauf Azhar in Precision Strikes Operation Sindoor: India’s Precision Strikes After Pahalgam Terror Attack Raise Cross-Border Tensions Delhi High Court Sends Dispute Over Netflix’s ‘Emergency’ Film and Coomi Kapoor’s Book to Mediation Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban NITU KUMARI 09 May 2025 Explore the constitutional challenge to demonetisation in India. Understand the Supreme Court’s ruling on the legality of the 2016 currency ban and its implications on the RBI Act, Section 26(2), and the Indian economy. Introduction to the Demonetisation Controversy In 2016, the Indian government implemented a controversial demonetisation policy, invalidating ₹500 and ₹1000 notes to tackle black money, counterfeit currency, and economic subversion. The policy raised significant legal questions, leading to a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court of India. This blog post explores the key aspects of the case Vivek Narayan Sharma vs. Union of India, the legal arguments, and the final judgment delivered on January 2, 2023. Background: The Demonetisation Decision What Was Demonetisation? On November 8, 2016, the Indian government demonetised ₹500 and ₹1000 notes under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The goal was to combat counterfeit money, black market activities, and terrorism funding. However, this sudden move left millions of people struggling with limited access to cash, sparking widespread criticism and legal challenges. The Legal Basis of Demonetisation The RBI Act, particularly Section 26(2), gave the Union Government the power to demonetise any series of banknotes based on recommendations from the Reserve Bank of India’s Central Board. The policy was intended to remove high-value currency notes from circulation, which were believed to facilitate illegal activities. The Constitutional Challenge: Key Issues Raised In the Vivek Narayan Sharma vs. Union of India case, several important legal issues were raised regarding the constitutionality of demonetisation: Does Section 26(2) of the RBI Act Allow for the Demonetisation of All Banknotes?This issue questioned whether the Union Government could demonetise “all” banknotes of a specific denomination or just select series. Excessive Delegation to the Government?Was it constitutionally valid for the RBI to delegate such significant power to the government under Section 26(2)? Was the Decision-Making Process Flawed?Critics argued that the decision-making process behind the demonetisation policy was not transparent or well thought out. Was the Exchange Period Reasonable?The short time frame given for exchanging demonetised notes was questioned for its practicality, especially considering the economic hardship it caused. Supreme Court Ruling: Was Demonetisation Constitutional? On January 2, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict on the matter. The case was heard by a Constitution Bench comprising five judges, with a majority ruling in favor of the Union Government. Majority Judgment (4-1) The majority opinion, authored by Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, held that the demonetisation policy was legally valid under the RBI Act, and that Section 26(2) allowed the government to demonetise all series of banknotes. The judgment ruled that the demonetisation policy met the criteria of proportionality and that the exchange period was reasonable. Dissenting Opinion (1-4) Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented, arguing that Section 26(2) should only allow demonetisation of a specific series, not all series. She emphasized that the Union Government should have passed legislation in Parliament for such a significant economic decision. Implications of the Ruling on Demonetisation Policy Legality and Proportionality The Supreme Court’s ruling confirmed the legality of demonetisation and reaffirmed the government’s authority to make such decisions. The Court found that the policy was proportionate to its intended goals of curbing black money and counterfeit currency. Effect on the Indian Economy While the policy aimed to improve the economy by targeting illicit funds, the immediate effects were mixed. Economic slowdown, liquidity shortages, and hardships faced by the common people led to ongoing debates about its long-term effectiveness. Future Legal Precedents The ruling may have far-reaching consequences for similar legal challenges in the future. Justice Nagarathna’s dissenting opinion may influence how future economic decisions are scrutinized in terms of their constitutionality and procedural fairness. Conclusion: A Landmark Decision in Indian Legal History The Supreme Court’s judgment on the demonetisation case brings clarity to the constitutional validity of economic policies and the powers vested in the Reserve Bank of India. While the decision reaffirmed the legality of the demonetisation policy, it also sparked debates about the appropriate balance between government power and individual rights. As India continues to deal with the consequences of demonetisation, this case will remain a key reference for understanding the intersection of economic policy and constitutional law. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of

Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Read More »

Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained

Leave a Comment / 2025, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Allows Ashish Mishra to Visit Lakhimpur Kheri Every Weekend Under Strict Conditions Rush to Trademark ‘Operation Sindoor’ Escalates Amid Ongoing Conflict, with Reliance and Others Filing Claims 21 Northern Indian Airports Closed Until May 10 Due to Military Tensions Near Pakistan Border J&K High Court: Magistrates Can Issue Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Even in Cheque Bounce Cases Operation Sindoor: India Eliminates IC-814 Hijack Mastermind Abdul Rauf Azhar in Precision Strikes Operation Sindoor: India’s Precision Strikes After Pahalgam Terror Attack Raise Cross-Border Tensions Delhi High Court Sends Dispute Over Netflix’s ‘Emergency’ Film and Coomi Kapoor’s Book to Mediation Shiv Sena (UBT) Urges Supreme Court to Fast-Track Symbol Dispute Before Maharashtra Local Body Elections Supreme Court Orders CLAT-UG 2025 Merit List Revision: Key Questions Removed and Re-Evaluated Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained NITU KUMARI 09 May 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court reshaped the appointment process for the Election Commission of India in the landmark Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India case (2023). Learn what this means for Indian democracy, electoral transparency, and constitutional law. Introduction: Reassessing the Independence of the Election Commission of India The Election Commission of India (ECI) is crucial to ensuring free and fair elections, as mandated by Article 324 of the Constitution of India. However, the method of appointing Election Commissioners lacked statutory clarity—until the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India case. Background of the Case What Prompted the Legal Challenge? In January 2015, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Anoop Baranwal, arguing that the appointment process—where the President of India acts on the advice of the Prime Minister—was unconstitutional. This PIL was consolidated with related petitions by the Association for Democratic Reforms and Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, advocating a more transparent, independent selection process for the ECI. Legal Issues Raised Key Constitutional Questions Does the current method of appointing Election Commissioners violate the Right to Equality under Article 14? Does it compromise the Right to Free and Fair Elections as a basic feature of the Constitution? Arguments from Both Sides Petitioners’ Standpoint Absence of a statutory framework violates constitutional principles. Existing process allows executive dominance, undermining electoral independence. Recommended a selection committee including the Prime Minister of India, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice of India. Respondent’s (Union of India) View Argued under the doctrine of Separation of Powers. Emphasized that the judiciary must not override legislative or executive authority. Claimed the ECI has maintained its independence under the current appointment process. Supreme Court Judgment: A Landmark Decision (March 2, 2023) The five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, delivered a transformative judgment: Directed the formation of a selection committee with the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice of India to recommend ECI appointments until Parliament passes a law. Called for a dedicated Secretariat for the ECI, funded by the Consolidated Fund of India. Emphasized the need for transparency, independence, and institutional accountability. The case is reported as 2023 INSC 190. Impact on Indian Democracy Why This Judgment Matters This decision is a pivotal moment in ensuring the autonomy of the Election Commission. It supports the constitutional framework that democratic institutions must remain independent from executive overreach. Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, former Chief Election Commissioner of India, had previously recommended: Budgetary independence through the Consolidated Fund of India. Establishing a secretariat modeled on that of the Supreme Court of India and Parliament. Conclusion: Strengthening Electoral Integrity in India The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Anoop Baranwal case marks a historic step in reinforcing democratic values. It lays the foundation for a more transparent and balanced electoral system and boosts public trust in democratic institutions. The judgment stands as a major reform in constitutional law in India and ensures that electoral integrity is upheld through a genuinely independent Election Commission. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Supreme Court Orders National Safety Protocol After Doctor’s Rape and Murder at R.G. Kar Medical College Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Right to Privacy, Restricts DNA Tests in Divorce Cases Alleging Adultery Sada Law • May 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Reforms ECI Appointment Process: Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India Judgment Explained Read More »

“Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights”

Leave a Comment / 2020, Case law /

Trending Today “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh: Supreme Court’s Landmark Verdict on Free Speech and Right to Dignity Pakistan’s Defence Minister Admits Terror Support, Blames India for Pahalgam Attack Amid Rising Tensions Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules on Husband’s Appeal for Divorce Amid Alleged Extramarital Affair Copyright Protection for Hindustani Classical Music Compositions and AR Rahman’s ‘Veera Raja Veera’ Dispute” Delhi High Court Suspends Medha Patkar’s Sentence in VK Saxena Defamation Case India Puts Indus Waters Treaty on Hold: Historic Decision Amid Rising Tensions with Pakistan Terrorist Attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir: 26 Dead, Several Critically Injured in Market Shooting Raj Kundra Moves Bombay High Court to Quash Look Out Circular in Pornographic Film Racket Case Ramdev Agrees to Remove ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Videos After Court Rebuke Over Rooh Afza Remarks Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights 26 Apr 2025 Discover the significance of Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020), a milestone in safeguarding internet freedom and human rights in India. Understand the case background, Supreme Court’s judgment, and the future impact of the Telecom Bill 2023. Introduction: A Defining Moment for Digital Rights The case of Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020) marks a historic milestone in India’s struggle for internet freedom and human rights. Triggered by the communication blackout in Jammu and Kashmir following the Article 370 revocation, the case questioned the delicate balance between national security and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of India‘s ruling not only scrutinized the legality of internet shutdowns but also introduced critical principles like proportionality, transparency, and judicial review. This blog explores the background, key arguments, court verdict, and the broader impact, including insights into the Telecom Bill 2023. Background: Communication Blackout in Jammu and Kashmir On August 5, 2019, the Indian government revoked Article 370, removing Jammu and Kashmir’s special autonomy. To preempt unrest, authorities imposed a stringent communication blackout—halting internet services and enforcing movement restrictions. This move disrupted daily life, crippled businesses, and hampered journalism. Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of the Kashmir Times, challenged these restrictions in the Supreme Court, arguing that they violated fundamental constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). Core Legal Challenges 1. Violation of Fundamental Rights The indefinite internet suspension infringed upon: Freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)). Right to practice any profession or carry out any trade (Article 19(1)(g)). 2. Lack of Proportionality and Due Process Petitioners highlighted: Blanket restrictions were unreasonable and lacked a graded response. Shutdown orders were not publicly disclosed, obstructing judicial review. 3. Government’s Defense The government contended: The shutdown was a temporary measure to maintain national security and public order. Powers were exercised under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017. Key Questions Before the Court Constitutionality of prolonged internet shutdowns. Proportionality of restrictions. Transparency and adherence to due process. The Supreme Court’s Verdict: A Historic Ruling On January 10, 2020, the Supreme Court delivered a transformative judgment: Recognition of Internet as a Fundamental Right The Court declared: Access to the internet is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). The Proportionality Test Restrictions on fundamental rights must be: Necessary. Least intrusive. Periodically reviewed. Transparency and Review Mechanism All shutdown orders must be published. A review committee must assess the necessity of orders every seven days. Judicial Scrutiny Citizens affected by shutdowns must have the right to challenge them in courts. Implementation of Guidelines: Reality Check Despite clear directions, compliance with the Anuradha Bhasin guidelines remains inconsistent. Reports suggest: Some progress in publishing shutdown orders. Inadequate adherence to the periodic review process. Frequent internet shutdowns still occur across India, raising concerns about fundamental rights. Impact on Journalism and Business The blackout devastated both: Journalists struggled to report, affecting press freedom. Businesses, especially in the digital economy, suffered heavy losses. This case stressed the critical need for balancing national security and individual liberties. The Telecom Bill 2023: A Step Forward? The Telecom Bill 2023 aims to codify shutdown regulations: Key Provisions Clear criteria for suspension of services. Robust review and accountability mechanisms. Mandatory public disclosure of shutdown orders. The bill seeks to enshrine the principles of proportionality, necessity, and transparency into law, ensuring a more predictable framework for future restrictions. Conclusion: The Lasting Legacy of Anuradha Bhasin Case The Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India ruling redefined the conversation around internet shutdowns and fundamental rights in India. Though implementation challenges persist, the case established a strong legal foundation promoting vigilance, transparency, and accountability. As technology evolves, the need to defend digital freedoms and ensure human rights becomes even more critical. The upcoming reforms under the Telecom Bill 2023 offer hope for a balanced and lawful approach in managing security concerns without eroding fundamental liberties. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” “Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh: Supreme Court’s Landmark Verdict on Free Speech and Right to Dignity Kaushal Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh: Supreme Court’s Landmark Verdict on Free Speech and Right to Dignity Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained Sadalaw Publications • April 18, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

“Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): A Landmark Verdict on Internet Freedom and Fundamental Rights” Read More »

Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty.

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. Punjab & Haryana High Court: Child in Womb During Accident Is Subject To Reimbursement Under MV Act What it implies signifies Sam Altman claims that OpenAI’s GPUs are “melting” over Ghibli-style AI art Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: Gurminder Singh, Punjab Advocate General, Steps Down Over 3 Crore Cases Disposed of in First National Lok Adalat of 2025; Settlement Value Crosses ₹18,212 Crore AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF CSR IN THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 On April 14, the center announces a day off in honor of Ambedkar’s birthday anniversary. The Supreme Court requires a preliminary investigation before filing a formal complaint for some speech and expression-related offenses. Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty.                                                            NITU KUMARI 03 Apr 2025 SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN vs STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICEOn 21 March 2023 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAINHERENT JURISDICTIONReview Petition (Crl.) Nos. 159-160 of 2013INCriminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011 Sundar @ Sundarrajan … Petitioner versusState (India) by Inspector of Police … Respondent Date Of Judgment:- March 21, 2023Case citation:- 2023 INSC 324Presiding judges:-Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (Chief Justice)Hima Kohli Factual Background On 27 July 2009, the Petitioner kidnapped a seven-year-old child in Kammapuram, Tamil Nadu. He made two calls to the victim’s mother, demanding a ransom of Rs 5 lakhs. On 30 July 2009, the police raided the house of the Petitioner and arrested him and a co-accused. The Petitioner confessed to strangling the child and disposing of his body in a tank. On the basis of the Petitioner’s confession, the police recovered the victim’s body from the tank. The petitioner was convicted by the Cuddalore Trial Court of kidnapping and killing the child. In accordance with Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, he was found guilty of kidnapping and murder and given the death penalty. The co-accused was found not guilty of any charges. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his conviction before the Madras High Court. Additionally, a Supreme Court of India appeal heard by a Division Bench consisting of two judges was denied. The conviction and the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court were maintained by both appellate courts. In Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2014 INSC 590, the Supreme Court ruled that applications seeking a review of death penalty sentences have to be heard in public. The petitioner contended that because his conviction contained judicial mistakes, it should be reviewed. He maintained that even if his guilt were proven, his sentence should be mitigated because the courts had not taken into account mitigating circumstances when they sentenced him to death. The State of Tamil Nadu argued that the claimed mistakes did not justify the Supreme Court’s limited review authority. Issue Of the Case (i) Should the conviction of the petitioner for kidnapping and murder (under Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) be reviewed by the Supreme Court?(ii) Was it appropriate to give the petitioner the death penalty? Judgment The Supreme Court upheld the petitioner’s conviction for kidnapping and murder. However, it came to the conclusion that neither the Trial Court nor the appellate courts had considered mitigating circumstances while determining whether to execute the Petitioner, which was only appropriate in very rare situations. The Supreme Court changed the petitioner’s sentence to life imprisonment for at least 20 years with no chance of parole. The court’s decision was written by Chief Justice Chandrachud. a. Ratio Decidendi No errors apparent on the face of the record The prosecution‘s case was supported by compelling witness testimony and documentary evidence, and the court determined that the petitioner had failed to cast a reasonable doubt on it. The conviction of the petitioner for kidnapping and murder was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which was satisfied with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, the High Court, and its Division Bench. Examining both aggravating and mitigating conditions The Supreme Court determined that before imposing the death penalty, the Trial Court had not given the Petitioner a proper hearing on sentencing. Neither the Trial Court nor the appellate courts had sincerely attempted to take into account mitigating factors that would indicate the Petitioner’s potential for reform or rehabilitation. Rather, the punishment was enforced and validated based only on the heinousness of the offense. The Supreme Court’s Division Bench concluded that the Petitioner’s choice to kill a family’s sole son, who would have continued the family line, constituted an aggravating circumstance. Conclusion The Supreme Court of India modified the petitioner’s death sentence to life imprisonment for a minimum of twenty years without mercy or remission in the case of Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State by Inspector of Police. Although the court took into account the mitigating circumstances and determined that the death penalty was not justified, it affirmed the petitioner’s conviction for the kidnapping and murder of a 7-year-old boy. Additionally, the court directed the Registry to register a suo motu contempt proceeding against the Inspector of Police for concealing material information regarding the petitioner’s conduct in prison. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case laws Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 3, 2025 • Case law, Live cases • No Comments Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 1, 2025 • Case law • No

Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. Read More »

Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court BCI Has No Business Interfering With Legal Education’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against HC Allowing 2 Convicts To Attend Law School Virtually Merchant Navy Officer’s murder:Parents Disown Daughter Accused Of Killing Husband ,Says ‘She Should Be Hanged’ Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation NITU KUMARI 24 Mar 2025 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAORIGINAL CIVIL/CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONWrit Petition (C) No. 162 of 2023 Vishal Tiwari …PETITIONER Versus Union of India …RESPONDENTS Date Of Judgment: January 3, 2024Case Citation: 2024 INSC 3Presiding Judges:Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. ChandrachudJustice Jamshed B. PardiwalaJustice Manoj Misra Factual Background: In a report released on January 24, 2023, the American investment research firm Hindenburg Research accused the Adani Group of neglecting to disclose important financial information, manipulating stock prices, and breaking SEBI regulations. Investor wealth was eroded as a result of this revelation, which caused the share price of the Adani Group of Companies to drop significantly. The Supreme Court of India received a number of petitions addressing the need to look into the Adani Group and shield investors from market shocks. In its ruling on March 2, 2023, the Court ordered SEBI to look into claims that the Adani Group may have violated regulations. To evaluate the issue and suggest actions to improve investor protection, an expert group was also formed. The petitioners asked for the creation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to supervise the inquiry and attempted to revoke some of the amendments made to the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investments) Regulations, 2014 and the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (“SEBI Regulations”). The expert committee turned in its findings on May 6, 2023, and SEBI filed a status report on August 25, 2023. Of the twenty-four investigations, SEBI has finished twenty-two as of the judgment date. Issue Of The Case: Whether the Supreme Court should transfer the investigation into the Adani Group from SEBI to a Special Investigation Team (“SIT”)? What is the scope of judicial review over the regulatory functions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”)? Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that courts have little authority to meddle in SEBI’s regulatory operations. The Court found no justification for rescinding the SEBI Regulations modifications. The Court decided that there was no need to move the inquiry to a SIT because there was no evident violation of SEBI’s regulations. The Court ordered SEBI and the Union Government to take into account the expert committee’s recommendations for fortifying the regulatory framework. It was Chief Justice Chandrachud who wrote the court’s ruling. Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court noted that it cannot judge whether rules created by statutory regulators such as SEBI are correct in its capacity as an appellate body. Judicial review is restricted to determining whether a policy is obviously arbitrary or infringes upon fundamental rights, constitutional requirements, or statutory legislation. The Court further ruled that courts should respect the knowledge of regulators who have taken expert opinions into account when creating their policies, especially in technical areas like economic and financial concerns. The Supreme Court maintained SEBI’s rules, ruling that the agency had adequately outlined the development and justification of its regulatory structure and that the processes it employed were neither unlawful nor capricious. During its probe of the Adani Group, the Supreme Court found no evidence of regulatory failure by SEBI. The Court noted that it should exercise its power to transfer investigations under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India only in extreme situations. Unless the investigating authority conducts the investigation in a clear, purposeful, and deliberate manner, the Court cannot step in. Conclusion: The case of Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India revolves around the allegations of stock market manipulation and regulatory violations by the Adani Group, as reported by Hindenburg Research. The Supreme Court of India ultimately concluded that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) did not lack efficiency in conducting the investigation and upheld the validity of the investigation held by SEBI. The court also clarified that its power to enter the regulatory domain and question SEBI’s delegated legislation powers is limited. Additionally, the court directed SEBI to complete the pending investigations preferably within three months. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Read More »

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 The Role of Intellectual Property in Promoting Innovation in India Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 Supreme Court Overrules Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 13 Mar 2025 Table of contents OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION ON DEMOCRACY AND POLITICS IN INDIA CRITICISMS AND CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING CONCLUSION: FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS SSC ONLINE SC VIDEO OF SUPREME COURT VERDICT REFERENCES OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS The case of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. UOI was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ADR, a non-political arrangement occupied towards transparency and accountability in Indian elections. The basic objective concerning this case search out challenge Section 33B (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA), that admitted governmental bodies to withhold facts about their capital beginnings, containing gifts taken from alien companies or things. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE The petition was ground for one Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), two non-administration arrangements active towards electoral corrects in the country. The case generally disputed sure supplying of the Representation of People Act, 1951, that admitted political bodies to accept unknown gifts from things or associations through Electoral Bonds. This practice produced concerns about transparency and responsibility in governmental capital, that are critical details of a fair and democratic electing process. The culture chief until this case may be tracked back to the approvals made for one Indrajit Gupta Committee Report on State Funding of Elections in 1998.In order to address these issues, the commission submitted measures to a degree state capital of elections, revelation of electing expenditures by competitors, and better investigation over choosing loan. In line with these pieces of advice, Parliament passed important corrections to the Representation of People Act in 2002, individual being Section 29B (1) that made acquainted a new supplying admitting Electoral Bonds as an additional fashion for making gifts to governmental bodies. However, ADR and PUCL discussed that this correction was illegal as it went against fundamental law like transparency honestly existence, free and fair voting process sure-fire under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 respectively. They more argued that unknown gifts manage conceivably admit illegal services laundering actions through structure associations or external systems outside any responsibility. In reaction, the principal management protected their resolution to introduce Electoral Bonds by way of to advance gifts through legal and obvious channels. Thus, this case nurtured important questions about the balance between secrecy and transparency in electing capital, and allure affect fair and self-governing elections in India. The outcome concerning this case has the potential to shape future tactics had connection with voting loan and advance greater responsibility between governmental bodies and contenders. KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE The case of Association for Democratic Reforms and Another v Union of India and so forth SSC Online SC has collect significant consideration and bred main questions about the duty of services in Indian campaigning. At the heart of this milestone case, there are various key performers the one has existed complicated in differing capacities. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR): ADR is a non-political institution that was made in 1999 accompanying a dream to advance transparency and accountability in Indian government. Union of India: The Union of India refers to the main administration in this place case as it arrange accomplishing standards related to governmental capital and choosing processes. The Ministry of Law & Justice shows the joining before the Supreme Court as respondent no.1. Election Commission of India (ECI): In allure answer to this case, ECI contended that binding announcement grant permission bring about harassment or revenge against benefactors by rival governmental bodies. Law Commission: Law Commission refers to an executive party start apiece Government periodically burdened accompanying learning allowable issues had connection with choosing laws containing campaign finance rules. 5.Member Secretaries – Screen Scrutiny Committee (SSC) & Financial Affairs Subcommittee (FAS): These juries were comprised by ECI later taking afflictions against sure politicians and person in government who makes laws the one had purportedly taken different offerings outside prior consent from ECI. 6.Candidates/Petitioners: The main petitioners in this place case are ADR and Common Cause, presented by advocate Prashant Bhushan. The top court has admitted six additional individual competitors to intervene in the case, disputing their right to see the beginnings of capital taken by governmental parties. LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES The permissible battle betwixt the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Union of India, and so forth, concerning connected to the internet examinations transported apiece Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has been a continuous issue. On individual help, ADR contends that the use of science in administering exams poses a risk to bidders’ data freedom and solitude. ADR’s debate is established Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, that guarantees similarity

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote