Supreme Court of India

Justice BR Gavai Recommends Justice Surya Kant as Next Chief Justice of India

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw

Trending Today Justice BR Gavai Recommends Justice Surya Kant as Next Chief Justice of India Kerala High Court Backs Lulu Mall’s Right to Collect Parking Fees Madras High Court Reinforces Natural Justice in Family Arbitration Mala Etc. Etc. vs. State of Punjab & Others – Enhancement of Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 The Supreme Court Upholds Limited Judicial Review under the Arbitration Act of 1940 and Restores the Arbitral Award in a Contractor Dispute Criminal Appeal Challenging a Conviction for Murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code M. SIVADASAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. & ORS v. A. SOUDAMINI (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. & ORS. (2023) Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Others Niranjan Das @ Niru Das @ Mahanto vs The State of West Bengal Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) vs Superintendent of Central Excise and Others Justice BR Gavai Recommends Justice Surya Kant as Next Chief Justice of India Palak Singla 29 October, 2025 Introduction Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai has formally recommended Justice Surya Kant as his successor, following the judicial seniority tradition. Justice Surya Kant, currently the second-senior-most judge of the Supreme Court of India, will assume charge as the 53rd Chief Justice of India on 24 November 2025, succeeding Justice Gavai, who retires on 23 November 2025. Background & Significance This recommendation aligns with the established collegium seniority norm in appointing the Chief Justice of India. Justice Surya Kant is set to serve for approximately 14 months, until his retirement in February 2027. Notably, this marks the first time a jurist from Haryana will hold India’s top judicial office — a historic milestone. Who is Justice Surya Kant? Early Life & Education Justice Surya Kant was born in Hisar, Haryana, and has had an illustrious legal career leading up to the Supreme Court. Judicial Career Former Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court Elevated to the Supreme Court of India Known for progressive judicial philosophy and constitutional rulings Landmark Judgments He has played a key role in important constitutional cases, including those related to: Article 370 Sedition law Gender equality and civil liberties Succession Timeline Event Date Justice B.R. Gavai retires 23 November 2025 Justice Surya Kant assumes office as 53rd CJI 24 November 2025 Expected retirement February 2027 Estimated tenure ~14 months Conclusion Justice Surya Kant’s elevation represents continuity in the Supreme Court’s leadership and marks a historic first for Haryana in India’s judicial history. His tenure is expected to focus on constitutional integrity, judicial reforms, and strengthening civil liberties. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Δ Case Laws Mala Etc. Etc. vs. State of Punjab & Others – Enhancement of Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sada Law • October 17, 2025 • Case law • No Comments The Supreme Court Upholds Limited Judicial Review under the Arbitration Act of 1940 and Restores the Arbitral Award in a Contractor Dispute Sada Law • October 17, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Criminal Appeal Challenging a Conviction for Murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code Sada Law • October 17, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Justice BR Gavai Recommends Justice Surya Kant as Next Chief Justice of India Read More »

State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Constitutionality of Amendments to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Constitutionality of Amendments to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs: Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation Supreme Court Orders Judicial and Investigative Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Cases (2023 INSC 698) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Validity of Amendments to Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation: Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei (2023 INSC 698): Supreme Court Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence YUKTI: Nationwide Mentorship and Internship Initiative for Aspiring Lawyers Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention Saurabh Sharma Appointed Partner at JSA Advocates & Solicitors in Ahmedabad Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Constitutionality of Amendments to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 14 October, 2025 Introduction This case revolves around the legality and constitutionality of amendments made to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (RMMCR). The State of Rajasthan, through notifications issued in 2011 and 2013, replaced the earlier “first come, first served” system for granting mining leases with a delineation and auction-based system. The Rajasthan High Court struck down these amendments as unconstitutional, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s judgment on August 1, 2023, clarified the extent of applicants’ rights and upheld the validity of the amended rules. Background (Facts of the Case) The State of Rajasthan issued notifications on January 28, 2011 and April 3, 2013, amending the RMMCR. Rule 4(10) and Rule 7(3) introduced a new framework mandating the delineation and auction of government land for mining leases. The amendments specified that all applications pending before January 27, 2011, would be rejected unless special circumstances justified consideration. These changes effectively ended the “first come, first served” practice, replacing it with a more transparent auction system. Applicants who had applied before the amendments, including Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, challenged the new rules. The Rajasthan High Court invalidated the amendments, citing: Violation of legitimate expectations of existing applicants, Absence of a hearing opportunity, and Infringement of alleged vested rights. Issue of the Case Whether the amendments to Rules 4(10) and 7(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 were constitutionally valid? Whether applicants for mining leases possess any fundamental or vested right in respect of their pending applications? Whether the amendments violated the principles of natural justice or legitimate expectation? Whether the amendments were introduced with malicious intent to circumvent previous court orders? Judgment The Supreme Court upheld the amendments and allowed the State’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s decision. The major findings were as follows: 1. No Fundamental or Vested Right in Mining Merely submitting a mining lease application does not create a vested or enforceable right. There is no fundamental right to obtain a mining lease, as mineral resources are the property of the State and governed by statutory regulation. 2. Legitimacy of the Amendments The State has constitutional and statutory authority to modify rules to ensure transparency, fairness, and public interest. The shift to an auction-based mechanism was a policy decision aimed at better mineral regulation and equitable distribution of natural resources. 3. Natural Justice and Legitimate Expectation The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override public interest. Applicants do not have a right to be heard before the introduction of a new rule or policy. Amendments enacted for systemic improvement cannot be invalidated merely because they affect existing expectations. 4. No Legal Malice The amendments were part of a legitimate policy reform and not intended to nullify or evade earlier High Court orders. Previous rulings concerning specific sandstone mining cases in a few villages could not be generalized to all applicants statewide. 5. Precedent Support The Court relied on earlier decisions, including: State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone (1981): No vested right arises from a pending mining application. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India (2012): Mining rights are not fundamental rights. Kerala Beverages Corp. v. P.P. Suresh (2019): Public interest can limit legitimate expectations. Current Status The Supreme Court’s decision reinstated the validity of the 2011 and 2013 amendments, confirming that the auction and delineation system for granting mining leases in Rajasthan is lawful and constitutionally sound. All pending pre-2011 applications were rendered invalid unless covered by specific exceptions. Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the State is the trustee of natural resources and that their allocation must be transparent, equitable, and in public interest. Applicants have no vested or fundamental right to a mining lease. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override legislative policy reforms. The State’s amendments introducing the auction-based system were constitutionally valid and consistent with the principles of fairness, transparency, and good governance. This judgment strengthens the legal foundation for auction-based allocation of natural resources and affirms the supremacy of public interest in regulatory policymaking. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Constitutionality of Amendments to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules Sada Law • October 14, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs: Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation Sada Law • October 14, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Orders Judicial and Investigative Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Cases (2023 INSC 698) Sada Law • October 14, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Constitutionality of Amendments to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules Read More »

Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs: Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs: Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation Supreme Court Orders Judicial and Investigative Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Cases (2023 INSC 698) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Validity of Amendments to Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation: Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei (2023 INSC 698): Supreme Court Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence YUKTI: Nationwide Mentorship and Internship Initiative for Aspiring Lawyers Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention Saurabh Sharma Appointed Partner at JSA Advocates & Solicitors in Ahmedabad Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023) Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra & Anr (2023) Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs: Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 14 October, 2025 Introduction This case concerns the applicability of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) to pathological and diagnostic laboratories prior to a specific 2007 notification by the Kerala Government. The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) claimed that the Act applied to the laboratory from an earlier date based on previous notifications. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified the scope of “shop” and the statutory process required to extend ESI coverage to such establishments. Background (Facts of the Case) On April 1, 1999, the respondent’s pathological laboratory was inspected, revealing 19 employees. The ESIC issued a notice claiming that the establishment was covered under the ESI Act from April 1, 1999. The respondent filed a complaint under Sections 75 and 77 of the ESI Act challenging the application. The ESI Court held that the laboratory qualified as a “shop” and was therefore covered under the 1976 notification. After the review petition was denied, the respondent appealed to the Kerala High Court. The High Court ruled that the ESI Act would apply only from September 6, 2007, following a specific notification by the Kerala Government extending the Act to medical and diagnostic establishments. Issue of the Case Whether a pathological laboratory can be classified as a “shop” under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, and therefore be subject to ESI coverage before the Kerala Government’s notification dated September 6, 2007. Judgment The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision and dismissed the ESIC’s appeal. The Court made several key observations: Interpretation of “Factory” and “Shop” The Court noted that the respondent was not a factory under Section 1(4) of the ESI Act since no manufacturing process was being carried out. The term “shop” was not defined in the Act, and ESIC’s classification of laboratories as shops was based only on internal circulars—not statutory authority. 1976 Notification The 1976 notification brought “shops” with 10 or more employees under ESI coverage. However, the Court clarified that a pathological laboratory does not meet the conventional meaning of a “shop,” which involves the sale and purchase of goods. Diagnostic services do not constitute trading activities. Circular of 2002 The ESIC relied on an internal circular dated November 22, 2002, expanding coverage to diagnostic centers. The Court ruled that internal circulars cannot override statutory provisions or notifications issued under Section 1(5) of the ESI Act. 2007 Notification The Kerala Government, with approval from the Central Government, issued a notification on September 6, 2007, expressly bringing medical, diagnostic, and pathological establishments with 20 or more employees under the ESI Act. This was the first valid legal notification to include such establishments, and therefore, the Act could not be applied retrospectively. ESIC’s Inconsistent Stand The Court criticized ESIC’s contradictory approach—claiming that labs were already covered as “shops” while simultaneously issuing a new notification in 2007 to include them explicitly. The Court held that such establishments were not legally covered under the ESI Act before the 2007 notification. Current Status The Supreme Court’s ruling remains binding precedent, affirming that diagnostic and pathological laboratories fall under the ESI Act only after the September 6, 2007 notification. ESIC cannot demand contributions for any period before that date. Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed that welfare legislation like the ESI Act must be implemented strictly according to statutory provisions and official notifications. Internal communications or administrative circulars cannot expand the scope of the law. Thus, pathological laboratories can only be brought within the ambit of the ESI Act from the date of valid notification—September 6, 2007—ensuring legal certainty and procedural fairness. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs: Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation Sada Law • October 14, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Orders Judicial and Investigative Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Cases (2023 INSC 698) Sada Law • October 14, 2025 • Case law • No Comments State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Validity of Amendments to Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules Sadalaw • October 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs: Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation Read More »

Supreme Court Orders Judicial and Investigative Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Cases (2023 INSC 698)

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sada Law

Trending Today Supreme Court Orders Judicial and Investigative Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Cases (2023 INSC 698) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Validity of Amendments to Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation: Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei (2023 INSC 698): Supreme Court Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence YUKTI: Nationwide Mentorship and Internship Initiative for Aspiring Lawyers Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention Saurabh Sharma Appointed Partner at JSA Advocates & Solicitors in Ahmedabad Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023) Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra & Anr (2023) Avtar Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab (2023) Supreme Court Orders Judicial and Investigative Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Cases (2023 INSC 698) PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 14 October, 2025 Introduction The case of Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei arose out of the severe ethnic violence in Manipur following the Manipur High Court’s directive to consider the Meitei community for inclusion in the Scheduled Tribes list. This led to large-scale unrest, human rights violations, and displacement. Petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking protection of victims’ rights, restoration of order, and judicial oversight in the investigation of crimes. Background On March 27, 2023, the Acting Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court instructed the state administration to recommend the inclusion of the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribes list. This decision sparked widespread protests among tribal groups who feared erosion of their constitutional protections. The violence resulted in killings, arson, sexual assaults, and mass displacement, prompting the Supreme Court’s intervention to ensure justice and uphold constitutional principles. Key Developments Numerous writ petitions were filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32. The Court found the responses of both the State and Central Governments inadequate. A three-member Judicial Relief and Rehabilitation Committee was formed, comprising: Justice Gita Mittal (Former Chief Justice, J&K High Court) Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi (Former Judge, Bombay High Court) Justice Asha Menon (Former Judge, Delhi High Court) The CBI was directed to investigate 11 FIRs related to sexual violence, with oversight from Dattatray Padsalgikar (Former Maharashtra DGP). 42 Special Investigation Teams (SITs) were set up for district-level investigations, with officers from outside Manipur to ensure impartiality. Issues Whether the Manipur High Court’s direction for inclusion of the Meitei community in the ST list was constitutionally valid. What remedial measures should be taken to address the humanitarian crisis, ensure accountability, and protect victims’ fundamental rights—particularly those of women affected by violence. Current Status The Supreme Court’s directions are being implemented under continuous judicial supervision. The Court has mandated regular progress reports from both the CBI and the Judicial Committee. Relief camps, medical aid, and victim compensation are being monitored to ensure transparency and accountability in the justice process. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s intervention in this case represents a landmark exercise of constitutional responsibility during ethnic conflict. It emphasized victim-centric justice, structural accountability, and the protection of fundamental rights. The ruling stands as a powerful reaffirmation of the judiciary’s role in preserving the rule of law, ensuring fairness, and delivering justice even amid social and political turmoil. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Orders Judicial and Investigative Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Cases (2023 INSC 698) Sada Law • October 14, 2025 • Case law • No Comments State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Validity of Amendments to Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules Sadalaw • October 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation: Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs Sadalaw • October 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Orders Judicial and Investigative Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Cases (2023 INSC 698) Read More »

State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Validity of Amendments to Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Trending Today State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Validity of Amendments to Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation: Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei (2023 INSC 698): Supreme Court Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence YUKTI: Nationwide Mentorship and Internship Initiative for Aspiring Lawyers Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention Saurabh Sharma Appointed Partner at JSA Advocates & Solicitors in Ahmedabad Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023) Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra & Anr (2023) Avtar Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab (2023) Supreme Court Dismisses Haji Iqbal’s FIR, Ruling That a Civil Dispute Was Mishandled as a Criminal Case State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Validity of Amendments to Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 13 October, 2025 Introduction This case examines the legality and constitutionality of amendments to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, which replaced the “first come, first served” approach for mining leases with a delineation and auction-based system. The Supreme Court of India reviewed petitions after the Rajasthan High Court declared the amendments invalid. Facts of the Case Amendments notified on January 28, 2011, and April 3, 2013, introduced Rules 4(10) and 7(3), mandating delineation and auction of government land for mining leases. Applications received prior to January 27, 2011, were generally rejected unless special circumstances applied. Petitioners like Sharwan Kumar Kumawat contested the changes, citing breach of reasonable expectations, lack of hearing, and infringement of vested rights. Rajasthan High Court initially held the amendments invalid. Issues of the Case Are the amendments to Rules 4(10) and 7(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 constitutionally valid? Do applicants for mining leases acquire any fundamental or vested rights? Do the amendments violate principles of natural justice or legitimate expectation? Were the amendments intended to evade previous High Court orders? Judgment The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendments. Key observations include: 1. No Fundamental or Vested Right in Mining Submitting an application does not create a vested right. Mining leases are not a fundamental right. Rights to government land and mineral resources are strictly regulated by statute. 2. Legitimacy of Amendments The State can amend rules to ensure equitable, transparent, and open practices, including online auctions. Amendments aim for better mineral regulation and fair distribution. 3. Natural Justice and Legitimate Expectation Public interest supersedes legitimate expectation. Beneficial amendments cannot be contested merely because they contradict preconceived notions. Applicants have no inherent right to a hearing before policy changes. 4. No Legal Malice Amendments reflect statutory policy changes, not attempts to override court orders. High Court rulings were limited in scope and did not grant overarching rights to applicants. 5. Dependency on Prior Cases State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone (1981): No vested right from pending applications. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. UOI (2012): No fundamental right to a mining lease. Kerala Beverages Corp. v. P.P. Suresh (2019): Reasonable expectations are limited in public interest matters. Conclusion The Supreme Court affirmed the State of Rajasthan’s authority and the legality of the amended rules: Pending applications do not create enforceable rights. Public interest and State authority override legitimate expectations. Transition to delineation and auction system is lawful and consistent with legislative and constitutional standards. This ruling reinforces the principle that natural resources are State-owned and their allocation must be transparent, equitable, and in the public interest. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Validity of Amendments to Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules Sadalaw • October 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Endocrinology and Immunology Lab v. E.S.I. Corporation: Application of the ESI Act to Pathological Labs Sadalaw • October 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei (2023 INSC 698): Supreme Court Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Sadalaw • October 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023): Validity of Amendments to Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules Read More »

Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei (2023 INSC 698): Supreme Court Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Trending Today Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei (2023 INSC 698): Supreme Court Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence YUKTI: Nationwide Mentorship and Internship Initiative for Aspiring Lawyers Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention Saurabh Sharma Appointed Partner at JSA Advocates & Solicitors in Ahmedabad Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023) Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra & Anr (2023) Avtar Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab (2023) Supreme Court Dismisses Haji Iqbal’s FIR, Ruling That a Civil Dispute Was Mishandled as a Criminal Case Supreme Court Upholds Insured’s Right to Reimbursement for Third-Party Medical Expenses Rohit Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei (2023 INSC 698): Supreme Court Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 13 October, 2025 Introduction A severe humanitarian and constitutional crisis in Manipur prompted an appeal to the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Following the Manipur High Court’s directive to include the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribes list, ethnic violence erupted, leading to mass evictions, human rights violations, and targeted attacks on women. The Court was petitioned to ensure the rule of law, accountability, and justice for victims. Facts of the Case On March 27, 2023, the Acting Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court recommended the Meitei community for Scheduled Tribe status. Tribal communities protested, claiming that ST inclusion would weaken their rights, resulting in widespread violence. Incidents included mass relocation, sexual assaults, murders, and arson. The Central Government deployed security forces and established relief camps. Multiple writ petitions under Article 32 highlighted safety, rehabilitation, medical aid, and police inaction. Supreme Court found the Central and State Governments’ reports largely insufficient. Issue of the Case Key Question:Whether the High Court of Manipur’s ruling on ST inclusion was constitutionally valid, and what steps were required to resolve the humanitarian crisis, uphold the rule of law, and protect fundamental rights, particularly of women? Judgment CJI D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized constitutional violations, administrative failures, and the urgent need for structural reform. The Court issued comprehensive directives: 1. Judicial Relief and Rehabilitation Committee A three-member judicial commission was established: Former Chief Justice Gita Mittal, Jammu & Kashmir High Court Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, Former Bombay High Court Judge Justice Asha Menon, Former Delhi High Court Judge Committee Mandates: Monitor survivors’ health, especially women Supervise relief camps: food, medical care, psychological support, sanitation Facilitate family reunification, legal aid, and compensation (₹10 lakh for deceased tribal family members) Establish toll-free helplines and nodal officers 2. CBI Oversight and Investigation CBI to handle 11 FIRs regarding sexual offences Officers from Rajasthan, MP, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Delhi, including at least one woman Former Maharashtra DGP Dattatray Padsalgikar to oversee police and CBI investigations Investigate alleged police complicity 3. Special Investigation Teams (SITs) 42 SITs across affected districts, with separate teams for sexual violence cases Officers assigned from outside Manipur for impartiality SITs to visit relief camps, collect grievances, and ensure FIR registration 4. Guidelines and Standards for Investigation FIRs must be promptly filed; zero FIRs converted immediately Medical examinations under Section 164-A CrPC to be conducted swiftly Witness and victim statements recorded promptly Police and SITs must follow Supreme Court directives (e.g., Nipun Saxena case) Ensure legal aid, psychological support, and witness protection 5. Restoring Rule of Law Identify vulnerable areas and prevent further violence Publicize SITs and judicial committee roles in camps and communities Recover stolen weapons Prepare for trials outside Manipur if necessary Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed its constitutional duty to protect equality, dignity, and life, especially for women victims of sexual violence. The judgment underscores transformational justice, highlights systemic failures in law enforcement, and ensures victim-centric relief, rehabilitation, and independent investigations. The Court emphasized that justice must be swift, fair, and accessible, even amidst public unrest, establishing a historic precedent for judicial and investigative oversight in ethnic violence cases. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei (2023 INSC 698): Supreme Court Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Sadalaw • October 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023) Sada Law • October 10, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra & Anr (2023) Sada Law • October 10, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei (2023 INSC 698): Supreme Court Oversight in Manipur Ethnic Violence Read More »

Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw

Trending Today Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention Saurabh Sharma Appointed Partner at JSA Advocates & Solicitors in Ahmedabad Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023) Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra & Anr (2023) Avtar Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab (2023) Supreme Court Dismisses Haji Iqbal’s FIR, Ruling That a Civil Dispute Was Mishandled as a Criminal Case Supreme Court Upholds Insured’s Right to Reimbursement for Third-Party Medical Expenses Rohit Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. INDRA BAI v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. Indian Government Fixes Critical Security Flaw in Income Tax E-Filing Portal, Preventing Major Data Leak Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention 13 October 2025 Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention The Supreme Court of India has issued notices to the Central Government, the Ladakh Administration, and the Superintendent of Jodhpur Central Jail regarding the detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk. The plea, filed by his wife Gitanjali Angmo, challenges the legality of his arrest under the National Security Act (NSA). Background: Arrest Amid Ladakh Protests Sonam Wangchuk was arrested on September 26, 2025, following violent protests in Leh demanding statehood, which tragically left four people dead. The arrest came after Wangchuk had led a 14-day hunger strike calling for dialogue with the Central Government of India. Supreme Court Proceedings A bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria will hear the matter on October 14. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the detention violates Article 22 of the Constitution of India, as Wangchuk’s family was not informed of the grounds for arrest, restricting meaningful legal challenge. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the government, stating that the reasons were communicated to Wangchuk and disclosure to his spouse is not legally required. The bench requested the Centre to consider sharing details with his family. Current Status and Jail Conditions Wangchuk was transferred from Ladakh to Jodhpur Central Jail following his arrest. His wife has sought: Permission to visit him Assurance of medical support The government stated that Wangchuk had undergone a medical check-up with no health concerns reported. The judges advised formally approaching jail authorities for visitation rights. Protests and Statehood Demand in Ladakh The arrest coincides with renewed protests in Ladakh demanding: Statehood Inclusion under the Sixth Schedule for tribal autonomy and protection of land rights Tensions escalated on September 24 when parts of the protests turned violent, resulting in police firing and casualties. Key regional groups, including the Apex Body Leh and Kargil Democratic Alliance, suspended talks with the government due to a breakdown of trust. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention Sadalaw • October 13, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Saurabh Sharma Appointed Partner at JSA Advocates & Solicitors in Ahmedabad Sadalaw • October 13, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Indian Government Fixes Critical Security Flaw in Income Tax E-Filing Portal, Preventing Major Data Leak Sadalaw • October 9, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Sonam Wangchuk’s Detention Read More »

Supreme Court Strengthens Road Safety Measures Across India in Landmark Judgment

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sadalaw

Trending Today Supreme Court Strengthens Road Safety Measures Across India in Landmark Judgment Dilip Kumar v. Brajraj Shrivastava & Anr. (2023): Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Duty Under Section 202(1) CrPC Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana & Another (2023): Supreme Court Upholds Summoning of Additional Accused Under Section 319 CrPC Anbazhagan v. State (2023): Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Culpable Homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC CCPA Finds Drishti IAS Misrepresented Success Stories of Candidates Advocate Rakesh Kishore Attempts Shoe Throw at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai in Supreme Court Why the Delhi High Court Is the Preferred Forum for Protecting Celebrity Personality Rights Plea Filed in Bombay High Court Challenging SEBI’s Approval for WeWork India’s IPO Delhi High Court Confirms Arbitral Tribunals’ Power to Direct Share Transfers in Joint Ventures Kerala HC Judge Questions Division Bench Interference; Refers Issue to Larger Bench Supreme Court Strengthens Road Safety Measures Across India in Landmark Judgment Palak Singla 08 October 2025 In a historic move, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment in the case of S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012). The verdict mandates a series of comprehensive reforms designed to enhance road discipline, traffic safety, and emergency medical response systems across India. The ruling emphasizes systemic measures to reduce road accidents, protect pedestrians, regulate non-motorized vehicles, and ensure timely medical assistance to victims. Background and Legal Framework The case originated in 2012 when Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, an orthopedic surgeon and noted road safety advocate, filed a public interest petition highlighting India’s alarming rate of road fatalities and lack of emergency care infrastructure. The Court noted the government’s failure to operationalize cashless treatment schemes for accident victims during the golden hour — the critical first hour after an injury. These provisions are mandated under Sections 162 and 164-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which became effective on April 1, 2022. Despite these legal requirements, the Central Government had yet to formulate an actionable framework for cashless treatment, posing a threat to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Key Directions Issued by the Supreme Court (October 7, 2025) The Supreme Court’s directives set clear deadlines for nationwide road safety enforcement and infrastructure improvements: 1. Golden Hour Medical Care The Central Government must frame and notify a cashless treatment scheme under Section 162(2) by March 14, 2025, with compliance updates due by March 21, 2025. 2. Compensation for Victims The General Insurance Council (GIC) is directed to process all pending hit-and-run claims and develop a digital claims portal by March 14, 2025, to streamline compensation delivery. 3. Regulation of Non-Motorized Vehicles All States and Union Territories (UTs) must formulate rules within six months under Sections 138(1A) and 210D of the Motor Vehicles Act to regulate non-motorized vehicles (such as cycles and hand carts) and pedestrian movement in public spaces and national highways. 4. Infrastructure and Road Maintenance Rules for design, construction, and maintenance of roads (excluding national highways) must be finalized and notified within six months. 5. Helmet Enforcement Strict compliance with helmet laws for both riders and pillion passengers is mandated, supported by e-enforcement using traffic cameras. 6. Traffic Violations and Road Discipline To curb unsafe practices, the Court ordered action against: Wrong-lane driving Unsafe overtaking Unauthorized use of LED lights and red-blue strobe lights Authorities are empowered to impose fines, seize vehicles, and conduct market crackdowns. 7. Pedestrian Safety and Footpath Audits The Court mandated pedestrian infrastructure audits across major cities to ensure encroachment-free and safe walkways. Government agencies must establish online grievance redressal systems for public complaints related to pedestrian safety. Court’s Observations and Rationale The Court observed alarming statistics — over 172,000 deaths from road accidents in 2023, including more than 35,000 pedestrian deaths. These figures underscore the urgent need for effective enforcement and safer infrastructure. The judgment linked pedestrian safety with broader goals of: Accident prevention Sustainable and inclusive mobility Environmental conservation Furthermore, the Court emphasized that delays in implementing welfare legislation, such as the cashless emergency care scheme, would attract strict judicial timelines and intervention. Implications of the Judgment This ruling marks a pivotal moment in India’s road safety reforms. Its implications include: Operationalizing Golden Hour Care: Timely medical intervention can drastically reduce fatalities. Enhanced Accountability: States and UTs must ensure rule creation and enforcement. Strengthened Law Enforcement: Mandatory helmet use, penalties for traffic violations, and better regulation of vehicle lights. Infrastructure Improvement: Ensures proper maintenance of footpaths, roads, and pedestrian zones. Streamlined Compensation: The digital claims portal simplifies the process for victims and their families. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s directions in S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India reinforce the principle that road safety is a constitutional obligation under Article 21.By prioritizing golden-hour treatment, infrastructure improvement, and traffic discipline, India moves closer to creating a safer and more accountable road ecosystem for every citizen. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Strengthens Road Safety Measures Across India in Landmark Judgment Sadalaw • October 9, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments CCPA Finds Drishti IAS Misrepresented Success Stories of Candidates Sada Law • October 8, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Advocate Rakesh Kishore Attempts Shoe Throw at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai in Supreme Court Sada Law • October 8, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Strengthens Road Safety Measures Across India in Landmark Judgment Read More »

Anbazhagan v. State (2023): Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Culpable Homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC

Leave a Comment / Case law / Sadalaw

Trending Today Anbazhagan v. State (2023): Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Culpable Homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC CCPA Finds Drishti IAS Misrepresented Success Stories of Candidates Advocate Rakesh Kishore Attempts Shoe Throw at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai in Supreme Court Why the Delhi High Court Is the Preferred Forum for Protecting Celebrity Personality Rights Plea Filed in Bombay High Court Challenging SEBI’s Approval for WeWork India’s IPO Delhi High Court Confirms Arbitral Tribunals’ Power to Direct Share Transfers in Joint Ventures Kerala HC Judge Questions Division Bench Interference; Refers Issue to Larger Bench Vedanta Moves Delhi High Court Over Denial of Cambay Basin Block Extension Sahara Seeks Supreme Court Nod for Property Sale to Adani; Requests Protection from Authorities India and Canada Diplomatic Row Escalates Over Alleged Involvement in Sikh Leader’s Killing Anbazhagan v. State (2023): Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Culpable Homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC NISHA KUMARI Sep 29, 2025 Introduction The case of Anbazhagan v. The State, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 20 July 2023, involved a criminal appeal challenging a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant, Anbazhagan, was convicted for causing the death of his neighbor during a spontaneous quarrel involving a dispute over land access. The Supreme Court re-evaluated whether the act constituted culpable homicide with intent, or merely with knowledge of likely death, thereby altering the conviction from Part I to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Facts of the Case Parties Involved Appellant: Anbazhagan Respondent: The State, represented by the Inspector of Police Background of the Incident A land access dispute between Anbazhagan and his neighbor escalated into a physical confrontation. During a heated verbal exchange, Anbazhagan struck the neighbor on the head with a hoe, a farming tool. The blow was delivered spontaneously and without prior planning. The victim later succumbed to the injury. Legal Proceedings FIR Registered: Under Section 302 IPC (murder) Sessions Court Judgment: Convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC High Court: Upheld the conviction and sentence Supreme Court Appeal: Anbazhagan argued that he lacked intent to kill and sought conviction under Section 304 Part II Legal Issue Was the act committed by Anbazhagan a culpable homicide with intent (under Section 304 Part I IPC), or a case of culpable homicide with knowledge (under Section 304 Part II IPC)? The central question revolved around the presence or absence of mens rea—the mental state or intention behind the act. Supreme Court Judgment In its 2023 judgment ([2023] INSC 632), the bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice J.B. Pardiwala allowed the appeal in part. Key Observations The altercation was sudden and unpremeditated. There was no evidence of an intent to kill. The act was committed with the knowledge that it could result in death. Modified Conviction The Court held that the appropriate section was Section 304 Part II IPC, which applies when an act is committed knowingly but without the intention to cause death. Sentence The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment, replacing the more severe punishment under Part I of Section 304 IPC. Conclusion The Supreme Court of India carefully evaluated the nuances of intent vs. knowledge in this criminal appeal. It concluded that Anbazhagan’s actions lacked the intent to kill, and instead fell within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. By modifying the conviction and sentence, the Court balanced justice with the circumstantial nature of the offense—emphasizing that not all fatalities arising from altercations should attract the harshest penalties if mens rea is absent. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Anbazhagan v. State (2023): Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Culpable Homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC Sadalaw • October 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Determination of Control over Administrative Services between the Elected Delhi Government and the Union Government under Article 239AA Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Anbazhagan v. State (2023): Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Culpable Homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC Read More »

Advocate Rakesh Kishore Attempts Shoe Throw at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai in Supreme Court

Leave a Comment / Live cases / Sada Law

Trending Today Advocate Rakesh Kishore Attempts Shoe Throw at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai in Supreme Court Why the Delhi High Court Is the Preferred Forum for Protecting Celebrity Personality Rights Plea Filed in Bombay High Court Challenging SEBI’s Approval for WeWork India’s IPO Delhi High Court Confirms Arbitral Tribunals’ Power to Direct Share Transfers in Joint Ventures Kerala HC Judge Questions Division Bench Interference; Refers Issue to Larger Bench Vedanta Moves Delhi High Court Over Denial of Cambay Basin Block Extension Sahara Seeks Supreme Court Nod for Property Sale to Adani; Requests Protection from Authorities India and Canada Diplomatic Row Escalates Over Alleged Involvement in Sikh Leader’s Killing Supreme Court to Review Plea on Electoral Bonds Scheme India and Bangladesh Hold High-Level Border Security Talks to Tackle Migration, Smuggling, and Water-Sharing Disputes Advocate Rakesh Kishore Attempts Shoe Throw at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai in Supreme Court Palak Singla 08 October 2025 Background On 6 October 2025, a serious incident occurred in Court No. 1 of the Supreme Court of India, where Advocate Rakesh Kishore allegedly removed one of his sports shoes and attempted to throw it toward Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai.Security personnel immediately restrained the advocate, who shouted “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge” (“We won’t tolerate an insult to Sanatan Dharma”).The shoe did not reach the Bench, and the CJI calmly continued the proceedings, remarking, “These things do not affect me.” The incident followed a recent controversy surrounding Justice Gavai’s remark in a Khajuraho Vishnu idol restoration case, where he commented, “Go and ask the deity itself to do something.” The statement had sparked significant backlash and debate over judicial speech and religious sensitivity. Contempt of Court / Scandalising the Court The act of attempting to hurl a shoe at a sitting Chief Justice during open court proceedings constitutes a serious act of contempt, particularly under the category of “scandalising the court.” Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, any act or statement that “lowers the authority of the court” or “interferes with the due course of justice” is punishable. Such behaviour not only undermines the judiciary’s dignity but also disrupts the sanctity of judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has consistently held that lawyers, as officers of the court, must uphold the highest standards of respect and discipline in courtroom conduct. Professional Misconduct & Advocates Act Following the incident, the Bar Council of India (BCI) took immediate disciplinary action under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules on Professional Conduct and Etiquette. Licence Suspension: Advocate Kishore’s licence to practise was suspended with immediate effect, prohibiting him from appearing, acting, or pleading before any court in India. Show-Cause Notice: The BCI issued a notice directing him to provide an explanation within 15 days, failing which further disciplinary action could be taken. Coordination with Delhi Bar Council: The Delhi Bar Council was instructed to enforce the suspension order and inform all courts and tribunals. The BCI observed that the conduct was “inconsistent with the dignity of the court,” reiterating that advocates are duty-bound to maintain decorum and restraint. Conclusion The incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of professional ethics and respect for judicial institutions. The Supreme Court’s composure in handling the disruption contrasted sharply with the misconduct, reinforcing the principle that the dignity of the judiciary must remain inviolable. The ongoing disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council of India will determine the final consequences for Advocate Kishore, likely setting a precedent for handling similar acts of contempt by legal practitioners. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Advocate Rakesh Kishore Attempts Shoe Throw at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai in Supreme Court Sada Law • October 8, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Why the Delhi High Court Is the Preferred Forum for Protecting Celebrity Personality Rights Sada Law • October 8, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Plea Filed in Bombay High Court Challenging SEBI’s Approval for WeWork India’s IPO Sada Law • October 8, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Advocate Rakesh Kishore Attempts Shoe Throw at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai in Supreme Court Read More »