sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Supreme Court of India

“Pray to Lord Vishnu”: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea to Restore Beheaded Idol at Khajuraho

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today “Pray to Lord Vishnu”: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea to Restore Beheaded Idol at Khajuraho Supreme Court to Decide Validity of All Religious Conversion Laws; Transfers Cases from High Courts to Itself Mother Can’t Be Denied Child Custody Merely Because She Is Not as Wealthy as Father: J&K High Court We Will Have the Best ADR in the World: Supreme Court Justice PK Mishra at DAW 2025 Supreme Court Warns of Nullifying Entire Bihar Electoral Roll Revision if Illegality Found Anatomy of a Crash: The Story of Gagan Preet Makkad and Navjot Singh Preserving Ties, Protecting Sovereignty: India’s U.S. Strategy URBAN COMPANY & DEV ACCELERATOR IPOS: ALLOTMENT TODAY, GMP SURGING – HOW TO CHECK STATUS LIVE RUSSIA REAFFIRMS FIRM ALLIANCE WITH INDIA, TELLS US ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE IT WILL FAIL INDIA FALLS SHORT DESPITE STRONG START; AUSTRALIA CLINCHES FIRST ODI COMFORTABLY “Pray to Lord Vishnu”: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea to Restore Beheaded Idol at Khajuraho   Kashak Agarwala 16 September 2025 Introduction: The Supreme Court of India on September 16, 2025, declined to entertain a petition seeking restoration of a beheaded 7-foot statue of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple, part of the Khajuraho group of monuments in Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), not the judiciary. Background: The Khajuraho temples, constructed by the Chandravanshi kings, are famous for their intricate carvings and historical significance. The idol in question was mutilated during past invasions, including by the Mughals, and has remained unrestored for decades. The petitioner argued that government inaction, both during the colonial period and post-independence, had left the idol in its damaged state. Key Developments: Petition Filed: Rakesh Dalal filed the petition, urging restoration of the idol and asserting that its damaged condition violates devotees’ right to worship. Court Proceedings: The petition was heard by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih. CJI Remarks: CJI Gavai advised the petitioner to approach ASI for restoration, emphasizing the legal and administrative jurisdiction: “Go and ask the deity itself to do something now…It is an archeological field and ASI must issue permission etc.” Issues Raised: Alleged violation of devotees’ right to worship due to non-restoration of the idol. Historical neglect of cultural heritage, both during colonial times and after independence. Repeated petitions, protests, and memoranda submitted to authorities were reportedly ignored. Current Status: The Supreme Court rejected the petition, clarifying that restoration is under ASI’s administrative domain. The matter will now have to be pursued with the ASI, which governs maintenance and restoration of protected monuments. Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s refusal highlights the division between judicial intervention and administrative authority in heritage conservation. While devotees’ concerns remain, restoration of historic idols must be addressed through statutory bodies like ASI rather than the courts. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases “Pray to Lord Vishnu”: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea to Restore Beheaded Idol at Khajuraho Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court to Decide Validity of All Religious Conversion Laws; Transfers Cases from High Courts to Itself Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Mother Can’t Be Denied Child Custody Merely Because She Is Not as Wealthy as Father: J&K High Court Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

“Pray to Lord Vishnu”: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea to Restore Beheaded Idol at Khajuraho Read More »

Supreme Court to Decide Validity of All Religious Conversion Laws; Transfers Cases from High Courts to Itself

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court to Decide Validity of All Religious Conversion Laws; Transfers Cases from High Courts to Itself Mother Can’t Be Denied Child Custody Merely Because She Is Not as Wealthy as Father: J&K High Court We Will Have the Best ADR in the World: Supreme Court Justice PK Mishra at DAW 2025 Supreme Court Warns of Nullifying Entire Bihar Electoral Roll Revision if Illegality Found Anatomy of a Crash: The Story of Gagan Preet Makkad and Navjot Singh Preserving Ties, Protecting Sovereignty: India’s U.S. Strategy URBAN COMPANY & DEV ACCELERATOR IPOS: ALLOTMENT TODAY, GMP SURGING – HOW TO CHECK STATUS LIVE RUSSIA REAFFIRMS FIRM ALLIANCE WITH INDIA, TELLS US ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE IT WILL FAIL INDIA FALLS SHORT DESPITE STRONG START; AUSTRALIA CLINCHES FIRST ODI COMFORTABLY ITR Deadline 2025: Whether September 15 Will Be Extended — Live Updates Supreme Court to Decide Validity of All Religious Conversion Laws; Transfers Cases from High Courts to Itself   Kashak Agarwala 16 September 2025 Introduction: The Supreme Court of India has taken upon itself the responsibility to decide on the constitutional validity of state-level religious conversion laws. On September 16, 2025, a bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran ordered the transfer of all pending petitions from various High Courts to the apex court. Background: Several states, including Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, and Haryana, have enacted laws regulating or restricting religious conversions, often linked to interfaith marriages. These laws have faced multiple constitutional challenges in different High Courts, with critics calling them draconian and violative of fundamental rights. Key Developments: Transfer of Cases: The Supreme Court directed that all High Court petitions challenging state anti-conversion laws be consolidated and heard together. Bench Proceedings: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising sought transfer of the matters; Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj, representing Madhya Pradesh, raised no objection. The bench agreed, ordering “Ok, transfer all such petitions here.” Next Steps: The Court scheduled the matter for hearing after six weeks, when applications for interim relief (such as staying the operation of these laws) will be considered. Issues Raised: Stringent Provisions: Senior Advocate CU Singh flagged provisions in Uttar Pradesh’s law, including a minimum 20-year sentence and bail conditions comparable to PMLA, making bail in interfaith marriage cases nearly impossible. Abuse of Law: Concerns were raised about misuse during festivals and mob violence under the garb of “forced conversions.” Personal Law & Autonomy: Advocates Vrinda Grover and others argued these laws violate personal liberty, autonomy, and equality. State Submissions: States were directed to file replies, while Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay demanded a ban on deceitful conversions, prompting the CJI to ask how deceit could be determined in practice. Current Status: All High Court petitions have been transferred to the Supreme Court. The Court has not stayed the operation of the laws but will consider interim relief in six weeks. The matter now becomes a precedent-setting case on the balance between religious freedom, personal liberty, and state regulation. Conclusion: By centralizing the challenges, the Supreme Court has positioned itself to deliver a landmark verdict on the constitutionality of religious conversion laws across India. The outcome will have sweeping implications for interfaith marriages, individual freedoms, and the extent of state control over religious practices. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court to Decide Validity of All Religious Conversion Laws; Transfers Cases from High Courts to Itself Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Mother Can’t Be Denied Child Custody Merely Because She Is Not as Wealthy as Father: J&K High Court Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments We Will Have the Best ADR in the World: Supreme Court Justice PK Mishra at DAW 2025 Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court to Decide Validity of All Religious Conversion Laws; Transfers Cases from High Courts to Itself Read More »

We Will Have the Best ADR in the World: Supreme Court Justice PK Mishra at DAW 2025

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today We Will Have the Best ADR in the World: Supreme Court Justice PK Mishra at DAW 2025 Supreme Court Warns of Nullifying Entire Bihar Electoral Roll Revision if Illegality Found Anatomy of a Crash: The Story of Gagan Preet Makkad and Navjot Singh Preserving Ties, Protecting Sovereignty: India’s U.S. Strategy URBAN COMPANY & DEV ACCELERATOR IPOS: ALLOTMENT TODAY, GMP SURGING – HOW TO CHECK STATUS LIVE RUSSIA REAFFIRMS FIRM ALLIANCE WITH INDIA, TELLS US ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE IT WILL FAIL INDIA FALLS SHORT DESPITE STRONG START; AUSTRALIA CLINCHES FIRST ODI COMFORTABLY ITR Deadline 2025: Whether September 15 Will Be Extended — Live Updates Nepal’s Major Parties Demand Reinstatement of Dissolved Parliament From Screen Legend to People’s Leader: Vijay’s Realpolitik Journey We Will Have the Best ADR in the World: Supreme Court Justice PK Mishra at DAW 2025   Kashak Agarwala 16 September 2025 Introduction: At the Delhi Arbitration Weekend (DAW) 2025, Justice PK Mishra of the Supreme Court declared that India is on its way to becoming a global leader in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). He stressed that India is not far behind London and Singapore and soon will have the finest ADR system worldwide. Background: The Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) hosted the Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025, a significant event that brought together judges, legal professionals, academics, and practitioners to discuss the growth of arbitration and mediation in India. Justice PK Mishra connected ADR with India’s cultural heritage, noting that traditions of negotiation and persuasion have been integral to Indian society since ancient times. Key Developments: Justice Mishra highlighted that ICA has bolstered India’s ambition to become a global arbitral hub. He explained that ADR complements, rather than opposes, the judicial system and emphasized its importance for India’s economic growth. He stated that strong ADR mechanisms will help build international trust in India, essential for achieving the goal of becoming the world’s third or fourth-largest economy. Issues: Need for stricter timelines in arbitration-related petitions under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Concerns over delays in award enforcement. The gap between minimal court intervention and the necessity of judicial review in certain awards. Lack of formal training and specialization for arbitrators and mediators. Current Status: Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court underlined the urgency of reforms by advocating for fixed schedules in arbitration-related petitions, stronger laws, and specialized arbitration courts. Senior advocates, partners from leading law firms, and academics also contributed, reinforcing the view that arbitration and mediation are key to India’s legal and economic future. Conclusion: The Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025 showcased a strong vision for India’s ADR future. With judicial support, institutional reforms, and global aspirations, India is positioning itself as a hub for arbitration and mediation. If the proposed reforms materialize, India could soon rival leading arbitration centers like London and Singapore. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases We Will Have the Best ADR in the World: Supreme Court Justice PK Mishra at DAW 2025 Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Warns of Nullifying Entire Bihar Electoral Roll Revision if Illegality Found Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Anatomy of a Crash: The Story of Gagan Preet Makkad and Navjot Singh Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

We Will Have the Best ADR in the World: Supreme Court Justice PK Mishra at DAW 2025 Read More »

Supreme Court Warns of Nullifying Entire Bihar Electoral Roll Revision if Illegality Found

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Warns of Nullifying Entire Bihar Electoral Roll Revision if Illegality Found Anatomy of a Crash: The Story of Gagan Preet Makkad and Navjot Singh Preserving Ties, Protecting Sovereignty: India’s U.S. Strategy URBAN COMPANY & DEV ACCELERATOR IPOS: ALLOTMENT TODAY, GMP SURGING – HOW TO CHECK STATUS LIVE RUSSIA REAFFIRMS FIRM ALLIANCE WITH INDIA, TELLS US ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE IT WILL FAIL INDIA FALLS SHORT DESPITE STRONG START; AUSTRALIA CLINCHES FIRST ODI COMFORTABLY ITR Deadline 2025: Whether September 15 Will Be Extended — Live Updates Nepal’s Major Parties Demand Reinstatement of Dissolved Parliament From Screen Legend to People’s Leader: Vijay’s Realpolitik Journey LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY Supreme Court Warns of Nullifying Entire Bihar Electoral Roll Revision if Illegality Found Shivani Garg 16 September 2025 Introduction: The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a critical challenge to the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The case carries implications not just for Bihar’s state elections but also for how voter lists are revised across the country. Background: The ECI launched the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) on June 24, 2025, to update Bihar’s electoral rolls ahead of assembly elections. The exercise aimed to add eligible voters, remove ineligible entries, and correct inaccuracies. However, political parties such as RJD, along with civil society groups like ADR and PUCL, filed petitions alleging that the SIR’s timelines and documentation rules could disenfranchise genuine voters, especially the poor, migrants, and those lacking proper identity documents. Key Developments: The Supreme Court has not stayed the SIR process but has issued interim directions, including recognition of Aadhaar, voter ID cards, and ration cards as valid identity documents. Petitioners have raised concerns that eligible voters’ names are being deleted merely for missing deadlines or failing to submit documents. The SC clarified that the publication of the final electoral roll (expected by September 30, 2025) will not shield the process from judicial review. Issues: Whether the ECI’s tight deadlines and documentation demands are lawful and fair. The risk of mass disenfranchisement due to procedural hurdles. The balance between ECI’s constitutional mandate and the rights of citizens to participate in free and fair elections. Current Status: The Supreme Court has scheduled the final hearing for October 7, 2025, before a bench led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. The Court has made it clear that its ruling will have nationwide implications, potentially setting a precedent for all future Special Intensive Revision exercises. Conclusion: The outcome of this case could reshape how electoral rolls are revised in India. If the SC finds irregularities in ECI’s methodology, the entire revision in Bihar may be invalidated, and similar exercises across the country could come under question. This case highlights the delicate balance between administrative efficiency and safeguarding citizens’ voting rights. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Warns of Nullifying Entire Bihar Electoral Roll Revision if Illegality Found Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Anatomy of a Crash: The Story of Gagan Preet Makkad and Navjot Singh Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Preserving Ties, Protecting Sovereignty: India’s U.S. Strategy Sada Law • September 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Warns of Nullifying Entire Bihar Electoral Roll Revision if Illegality Found Read More »

Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing – Day 9

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing – Day 9 Supreme Court Questions Centre on Governors’ Inaction Over Bills UPSSSC PET 2025 Provisional Answer Key Released — Download Now & Raise Objections! C.P. Radhakrishnan Elected 17th Vice-President of India with a 152-Vote Margin France: “Block Everything” Protests Surge as New PM Lecornu Takes Office Gen-Z Uprising: Nepal PM Oli Resigns Amid Deadly Anti-Corruption Protests LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LILY THOMAS & SAJU JAKOB LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ZESTRICS CONSULTING LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KAYESS SQUARE LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MASON & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing – Day 9 Kashak Agarwala 11 September 2025 Introduction A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, continued hearing the Presidential Reference regarding the time limits and powers of Governors and the President in granting assent to state bills. The matter stems from the Court’s April 8 ruling which placed gubernatorial inaction under judicial review. Background The reference examines the constitutional scope of Articles 200 and 201, which govern Governors’ assent to state legislation. Critics argue that indefinite delays in granting assent disrupt the legislative process and undermine state autonomy within India’s federal framework. The Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 has been invoked to clarify the boundaries of gubernatorial discretion and judicial review. Key Developments Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy argued that Governors have no broad discretion under Article 200 except in limited cases, warning that indefinite inaction kills the legislative process. Senior Advocate P. Wilson emphasized that gubernatorial assent forms part of the legislative process, not a discretionary power, and that state autonomy must be preserved. He urged the Court to bar arbitrariness and uphold constitutional supremacy. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan explained the advisory scope of Article 143, stressing that the Court’s opinion is consultative, not binding, and contextualized it with references to colonial precedents. Advocate Avani Bansal proposed a “right to time” under Article 14, framing indefinite delays as arbitrariness and a violation of equality. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra supported broader citizen access to Article 32 remedies, particularly in cases of social crises, despite siding with the Union. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stressed that Governors are constitutional heads, not mere postmen, with functions subject to Article 159. He cautioned against equating Indian constitutional roles with the British Crown. Judicial observations: Justice Narasimha highlighted the need to balance democracy with federalism. The Bench noted that constitutional silences in Articles 200–201 permit interpretative flexibility. Chief Justice Gavai remarked on the vast volume of materials—nearly 18,000 pages—submitted. Issues Extent of Gubernatorial Discretion: Whether Governors can indefinitely withhold assent or are bound to act within reasonable time limits. Judicial Review: Whether courts can review gubernatorial inaction and enforce timeframes. Federal Balance: How to reconcile state autonomy with constitutional safeguards. Right to Time: Whether citizens have a constitutional right to timely legislative processes under Article 14. Constitutional Morality: Ensuring Governors act impartially and responsibly under their constitutional oath. Current Status The matter remains under active hearing by the Constitution Bench. The Court’s eventual advisory opinion will define the scope of gubernatorial powers, clarify timelines for assent, and set boundaries for judicial intervention. The next sessions are expected to refine arguments on constitutional morality, federal balance, and the operationalization of the proposed “right to time.” Conclusion Day 9 of the hearings highlighted the tension between gubernatorial discretion, state autonomy, and constitutional accountability. The outcome of the reference will have lasting implications on India’s federal structure, the role of Governors, and citizens’ right to timely governance Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing – Day 9 Sada Law • September 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Questions Centre on Governors’ Inaction Over Bills Sada Law • September 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments UPSSSC PET 2025 Provisional Answer Key Released — Download Now & Raise Objections! Sada Law • September 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing – Day 9 Read More »

Supreme Court Questions Centre on Governors’ Inaction Over Bills

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Questions Centre on Governors’ Inaction Over Bills UPSSSC PET 2025 Provisional Answer Key Released — Download Now & Raise Objections! C.P. Radhakrishnan Elected 17th Vice-President of India with a 152-Vote Margin France: “Block Everything” Protests Surge as New PM Lecornu Takes Office Gen-Z Uprising: Nepal PM Oli Resigns Amid Deadly Anti-Corruption Protests LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LILY THOMAS & SAJU JAKOB LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ZESTRICS CONSULTING LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT KAYESS SQUARE LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MASON & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ZYPP ELECTRIC Supreme Court Questions Centre on Governors’ Inaction Over Bills Kashak Agarwala 11 September 2025 Introduction: On 10 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India questioned the Centre over its claim that Governors delaying assent to bills was a “false alarm.” A Constitution Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai examined a Presidential Reference under Article 143, seeking clarity on the constitutional boundaries of gubernatorial powers in light of earlier rulings. The case probes the balance between state autonomy and the discretionary role of Governors in India’s federal structure. Background: The reference stems from the Court’s April 2025 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, which held that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills and must act within a “reasonable period.” President Droupadi Murmu referred fourteen constitutional questions, including whether courts may prescribe timelines where the Constitution is silent, and whether such constraints violate gubernatorial discretion under Articles 200 and 201. Key Developments: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that of 17,000 bills presented between 1970–2025, only 20 were denied assent, and 90% cleared within a month. The Bench challenged this, citing instances where bills had been pending for over four years. Telangana’s counsel emphasized that Governors’ powers must remain limited, warning against expanded discretion undermining federalism. Senior advocates argued that assent is part of the legislative process, not legislative power, and delays harm governance and citizens’ rights. Petitioners stressed the need for a constitutional “right to time,” linked to Article 14’s guarantee of equality. The Centre rebutted that Governors are not mere “postmen,” but have a consultative role to ensure constitutional compliance. Issues: Timeframe Ambiguity – Whether Governors and the President can indefinitely withhold assent or must act within judicially prescribed timelines. Federal Balance – How far gubernatorial discretion can extend without weakening state autonomy. Democratic Rights – Whether citizens can be deprived of governance by executive procrastination. Judicial Authority – The extent of the Supreme Court’s power to create procedural norms where the Constitution is silent. Current Status: As of 10 September 2025, the Constitution Bench is continuing hearings, with SG Mehta set to conclude his submissions. The Court is expected to soon reserve its advisory opinion, which will provide decisive clarity on the scope of gubernatorial and presidential powers over state legislation—an issue central to India’s federal design. Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s ruling will shape the constitutional boundaries of Governors’ roles in the legislative process. At stake is the delicate balance between ensuring federal accountability and protecting state autonomy. The judgment could curb executive delays, fortify democratic processes, and redefine the scope of discretionary power under Articles 200 and 201.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Questions Centre on Governors’ Inaction Over Bills Sada Law • September 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments UPSSSC PET 2025 Provisional Answer Key Released — Download Now & Raise Objections! Sada Law • September 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments C.P. Radhakrishnan Elected 17th Vice-President of India with a 152-Vote Margin Sada Law • September 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Questions Centre on Governors’ Inaction Over Bills Read More »

Presidential Reference on Governors’ Deadlines: Supreme Court Hearing (Day 7)

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Presidential Reference on Governors’ Deadlines: Supreme Court Hearing (Day 7) P&H High Court Permits ED to Access Information Shared by France with IT Department in Amarinder Singh Case Indonesia’s Protests Persist as Authorities Clamp Down and Cases of Missing Persons Rise LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT PERITUM PARTNERS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT QWICK JUSTICE LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT AEQUITAS JURIS LAW FIRM LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MY DESIGNATION DHCBA Expresses Concerns to CJI, Collegium Over Transfer of Delhi High Court Judges Bombay High Court Pulls Up Maratha Quota Protestors for Citywide Disruption Thailand’s Political Thaw Hinges on People’s Party Decision Amid PM Uncertainty Presidential Reference on Governors’ Deadlines: Supreme Court Hearing (Day 7) Kashak Agarwala 03 SEPTEMBER 2025 Introduction The Supreme Court Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, continued hearing arguments on the Presidential Reference regarding the ambit of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The issue stems from the Court’s earlier ruling dated April 8, which prescribed timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures. Background of the Reference President Droupadi Murmu referred the matter, expressing doubts over whether judicially imposed deadlines and the doctrine of “deemed assent” could be constitutionally sustained. Several States, including Kerala and Tamil Nadu, opposed the maintainability of the reference. The Union Government supported the reference, arguing that gubernatorial and presidential powers under Articles 200 and 201 are high constitutional functions and cannot be time-bound by judicial direction. Key Arguments Kapil Sibal (Senior Advocate) Emphasized that the will of the legislature represents the will of the people and cannot be obstructed by executive inaction or overreach. Stated that legislative enactments carry a presumption of constitutionality, which can only be contested in courts. Argued that Governors are not to review legislative intent but to act expeditiously, as implied in Article 200’s phrase “as soon as possible.” Warned against broad interpretations of executive discretion, cautioning that it could stall governance and create constitutional deadlocks. Asserted that once a legislature re-enacts a Bill after reconsideration, the Governor cannot withhold assent again without undermining the constitutional framework. Gopal Subramaniam (Senior Advocate for Karnataka) Highlighted that India’s democratic system is rooted in the cabinet form of government. Governors and the President act as titular heads and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Referred to Kesavananda Bharati to stress that the cabinet system is part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Warned that expanding gubernatorial discretion would erode the principle of separation of powers and parliamentary democracy. Anand Sharma (Senior Advocate, Former Union Minister) Asserted that Articles 200 and 201 must be read in line with federal principles. Governors have no authority to nullify the will of the legislature by indefinitely withholding assent. Argued that “as soon as possible” must be interpreted as “without undue delay,” else it risks paralysing State legislatures. Warned against misuse of the Governor’s office to distort Centre-State relations. Observations from the Bench Justice Surya Kant: “The Governor cannot be a postman, but neither can he act as a super-legislature.” Justice Narasimha: Queried the extent of a Governor’s role in examining repugnancy between State and Central laws. Bench discussed whether judicially imposed timelines amount to amending the Constitution; counsel clarified that timelines are functional standards, not amendments. Conclusion of Day 7 The Court concluded that the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 raised complex constitutional concerns that must be handled carefully to preserve balance between legislative authority and executive discretion. Proceedings will continue, with further arguments expected from senior counsel and the Solicitor General. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Presidential Reference on Governors’ Deadlines: Supreme Court Hearing (Day 7) Sada Law • September 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments P&H High Court Permits ED to Access Information Shared by France with IT Department in Amarinder Singh Case Sada Law • September 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Indonesia’s Protests Persist as Authorities Clamp Down and Cases of Missing Persons Rise Sada Law • September 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Presidential Reference on Governors’ Deadlines: Supreme Court Hearing (Day 7) Read More »

SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline “Hydrogen Bomb Ahead”: Rahul Gandhi Vows Exposure of Massive Vote Theft Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply to Tamil Nadu Plea on EWS Quota Reimbursements System that lets rapists walk free: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Men Who Raped 12-Year-Old Supreme Court Calls for Paralegal Volunteers to Assist Voters in Bihar SIR Exercise LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CYRALAW LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CENTRE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MALABAR GROUP LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT AMLEGALS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT DESTEK INFOSOLUTIONS SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline Shivani Garg Introduction The Supreme Court weighed in on the controversy surrounding Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, terming the confusion a matter of “trust deficit” between political parties and the Election Commission (EC). While the Court refused to extend the September 1 deadline for filing claims and objections, it introduced measures to strengthen transparency and voter support. Supreme Court’s Observations Trust Deficit: A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that the SIR issue reflected a lack of trust between political parties and the EC. No Extension of Deadline: The Court declined requests to extend the September 1 cut-off, asking parties instead to “activate themselves” to mobilize voters. Facilitating Participation: The Court sought a balance between electoral fairness and administrative efficiency. Election Commission’s Stand Post-Deadline Claims Allowed: The EC clarified that claims, objections, and corrections can still be filed after September 1. Condition Applied: Such submissions will only be processed after the final roll is published, and only until the last date of nomination in each assembly constituency. Timely Roll Finalization: Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the EC, cautioned that deadline extensions could derail the roll finalization process. Deployment of Paralegal Volunteers Role of Bihar Legal Services Authority: Directed by the Supreme Court, paralegal volunteers will help voters and parties file claims and objections in the proper format. Accountability Mechanism: Volunteers will file confidential reports with district judges by September 8, ensuring oversight and reducing mistrust. Bridging Trust Gap: This measure seeks to instill confidence among stakeholders in the electoral process. Key Numbers Draft Electors: 2.74 crore Documentation Status: ~99.5% of electors have already submitted eligibility documents. Risk of Delay: The EC stressed that relaxing deadlines may disrupt timelines crucial to upcoming polls. Analysis Trust vs. Procedure: The Court acknowledged trust issues but avoided altering procedural timelines. Balance of Rights: By allowing post-deadline claims under conditions, the EC and Court sought to preserve both voter inclusion and administrative order. New Transparency Mechanism: Paralegal volunteers mark a novel intervention to monitor fairness in electoral roll preparation. What Lies Ahead Monitoring Reports: District judges will receive volunteer reports by September 8. Election Readiness: The EC will finalize rolls on schedule to maintain the electoral calendar. Political Impact: Parties will have to rely on grassroots mobilization and volunteer-driven support instead of deadline extensions. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s intervention in Bihar’s SIR process underscores the delicate balance between electoral integrity, administrative discipline, and public trust. While deadlines remain intact, the introduction of paralegal volunteers could set a precedent for enhancing voter participation and transparency in future elections. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments “Hydrogen Bomb Ahead”: Rahul Gandhi Vows Exposure of Massive Vote Theft Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply to Tamil Nadu Plea on EWS Quota Reimbursements Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline Read More »

Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply to Tamil Nadu Plea on EWS Quota Reimbursements

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply to Tamil Nadu Plea on EWS Quota Reimbursements System that lets rapists walk free: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Men Who Raped 12-Year-Old Supreme Court Calls for Paralegal Volunteers to Assist Voters in Bihar SIR Exercise LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CYRALAW LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CENTRE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MALABAR GROUP LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT AMLEGALS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT DESTEK INFOSOLUTIONS The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy. Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Army Sepoy for Habitual Absence: Discipline Paramount in Armed Forces Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply to Tamil Nadu Plea on EWS Quota Reimbursements Kashak Agarwala 01 SEPTEMBER 2025 The Supreme Court has sought the Union government’s response to Tamil Nadu’s plea against a Madras High Court order directing the State to reimburse nearly ₹315 crore to private schools for admitting Economically Weaker Section (EWS) students under the Right to Education (RTE) Act, despite the Centre not releasing its share of funds. Introduction On 1 September 2025, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Union government in a case that pits Tamil Nadu against the Centre over financial responsibilities under the RTE Act. The matter, arising from a High Court ruling mandating reimbursements to private schools, raises critical questions about fiscal federalism in education. The Court will next hear the case on 29 September. High Court’s Ruling On 10 June 2025, the Madras High Court ruled that Tamil Nadu could not cite the Centre’s failure to release funds as a reason to delay reimbursements. Relying on Section 12(2) of the RTE Act, the Court ordered the State to pay ₹314.98 crore to private schools for fulfilling the 25% EWS reservation in entry-level classes. Tamil Nadu’s Stand Shared Responsibility: Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that Section 7 of the RTE Act makes both Centre and States jointly responsible for funding. Centre’s Default: The Union has not released its share since 2021, creating financial strain on Tamil Nadu’s budget. Judicial Overreach: The State contended that the High Court went beyond the scope of the writ petition, which was about admissions, by issuing binding financial directions. Statutory Arguments Tamil Nadu’s petition, filed by Advocate Sabarish Subramanian, stressed the interplay between key provisions: Section 12(2): Obligates States to reimburse private schools for EWS admissions. Sections 7(2), 7(3), 7(5): Impose a duty on the Centre to contribute proportionally to RTE funding. The State argued that reading Section 12(2) in isolation would nullify Section 7, producing an “absurd result” where the Centre escapes its statutory responsibility. Analysis Fiscal Federalism on TrialThe dispute highlights ongoing tensions over financial accountability between Centre and States in implementing welfare schemes. Balancing Statutory DutiesThe case requires judicial clarity on whether Centre–State cost-sharing under the RTE Act is mandatory or discretionary. Education and EquityAt stake is not just funding but the sustainability of EWS admissions in private schools, a key mechanism to ensure inclusivity in education. What Lies Ahead Supreme Court: Will consider whether the Centre’s financial contribution under Section 7 is enforceable, or whether States bear exclusive responsibility. Centre’s Reply: Its stance will determine whether this becomes a precedent on Centre–State cost-sharing in education schemes. Broader Impact: A ruling against Tamil Nadu could shift the reimbursement burden entirely onto States, affecting the viability of RTE implementation nationwide. Conclusion By seeking the Centre’s reply, the Supreme Court has placed the spotlight on the financial architecture of the RTE Act. The case represents a crucial test of fiscal federalism—whether the Union can shirk its statutory role, or whether shared responsibility remains the bedrock of inclusive education. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply to Tamil Nadu Plea on EWS Quota Reimbursements Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments System that lets rapists walk free: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Men Who Raped 12-Year-Old Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Calls for Paralegal Volunteers to Assist Voters in Bihar SIR Exercise Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply to Tamil Nadu Plea on EWS Quota Reimbursements Read More »

System that lets rapists walk free: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Men Who Raped 12-Year-Old

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline “Hydrogen Bomb Ahead”: Rahul Gandhi Vows Exposure of Massive Vote Theft Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply to Tamil Nadu Plea on EWS Quota Reimbursements System that lets rapists walk free: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Men Who Raped 12-Year-Old Supreme Court Calls for Paralegal Volunteers to Assist Voters in Bihar SIR Exercise LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CYRALAW LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CENTRE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MALABAR GROUP LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT AMLEGALS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT DESTEK INFOSOLUTIONS System that lets rapists walk free: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Men Who Raped 12-Year-Old Kashak Agarwala 01 SEPTEMBER 2025 The Supreme Court restored the conviction of two men for repeatedly raping a 12-year-old girl in Bihar, overturning a Patna High Court acquittal that had relied on procedural irregularities. The Bench criticized the justice system’s failure to protect victims when technicalities outweigh substantive evidence. Introduction On 1 September 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma reinstated the life sentences of two men convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in Bhojpur, Bihar. The Court overturned a Patna High Court judgment that had acquitted the accused on procedural grounds, stressing that minor technical lapses cannot overshadow consistent victim testimony, medical proof, and documentary evidence. Background: A Child Victim in Bhojpur The case originated in 2016, when the girl—later found to be three months pregnant—revealed repeated sexual assaults by two men who threatened her with death if she spoke out. Trial Court: Convicted both men under IPC and the POCSO Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Patna High Court: Acquitted the accused, citing doubts over the victim’s age, irregularities in framing charges, and the joint trial process under Section 223 CrPC. Appeal: The victim’s father moved the Supreme Court, arguing that overwhelming evidence had been disregarded. Supreme Court’s Key Observations Failure of the System: The Bench condemned how procedural loopholes often allow offenders to escape accountability. Age of Victim: Oral and documentary evidence consistently established the girl’s age between 12 and 15, and the defence never challenged it in cross-examination. Ground Realities: Courts must recognize rural inconsistencies in documents without treating them as fatal flaws. Evidence Standard: Variations in testimony are natural; “perfect evidence” often signals tutoring or fabrication. Systemic Sensitivity: Victims of sexual offences face double victimization—first through crime, then through insensitive legal procedures. Analysis Procedural vs. Substantive JusticeThe ruling emphasizes that technical lapses cannot override the pursuit of justice in heinous crimes like child rape. Judicial SensitivityThe judgment reinforces the need for courts to interpret evidence with sensitivity toward women and child victims, acknowledging social and rural realities. Warning to Appellate CourtsHigher courts must avoid mechanically overturning convictions and instead assess whether genuine failures of justice occurred. Representation For the Appellant: Advocates Daksha Kumar, Tanishq Mehta, Deepak Kumar, Ankita Baluni, Sonakshi Monga, and Aftab Ali Khan. For the Respondents: Advocates Talib Mustafa, Raksha Agrawal, Divyansh Mishra, Kumar Saurav, Lzafeer Ahmad BF, and Manish Kumar. Outcome The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s conviction and life sentences, rejecting the High Court’s reasoning as “misplaced and unsustainable.” The judgment sends a clear message: procedural technicalities cannot be weaponized to shield perpetrators of sexual violence, especially against minors. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases SC Calls SIR Confusion a “Trust Deficit”; EC: Objections Accepted After Deadline Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments “Hydrogen Bomb Ahead”: Rahul Gandhi Vows Exposure of Massive Vote Theft Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply to Tamil Nadu Plea on EWS Quota Reimbursements Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

System that lets rapists walk free: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Men Who Raped 12-Year-Old Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote