sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Calls for Paralegal Volunteers to Assist Voters in Bihar SIR Exercise

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today 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 Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS Supreme Court Calls for Paralegal Volunteers to Assist Voters in Bihar SIR Exercise   Kashak Agarwala 01 SEPTEMBER 2025 The Supreme Court has directed the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to deploy paralegal volunteers (PLVs) to help voters and political parties file claims, objections, and corrections in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, while refusing to extend the September 1 deadline. Introduction On 1 September 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi intervened in the ongoing controversy over Bihar’s electoral roll revision. Amid petitions alleging exclusion and lack of transparency in the SIR, the Court ordered immediate deployment of PLVs to assist voters. Despite pleas from petitioners, the Court declined to extend the September 1 deadline but emphasized that post-deadline submissions would still be considered before finalization of rolls. Background: Disputed SIR Process The SIR has become contentious after the draft electoral roll, published on 1 August, proposed deletion of over 65 lakh names. Civil society groups and political parties challenged the process, citing procedural lapses and lack of clarity on accepted documents. Earlier hearings in August had compelled the Election Commission of India (ECI) to publish the deletion list and allow Aadhaar as valid identity proof. Court’s Key Directions No Deadline Extension: The Court reiterated that claims and objections filed after September 1 would still be reviewed, but avoided formally extending the timeline to prevent disruption. Deployment of PLVs: The Bihar State Legal Services Authority was tasked with deploying PLVs immediately to guide voters in online submissions and report confidentially to district judges. Aadhaar as Identity Proof: The Bench stressed that Aadhaar must be recognized under Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act for voter verification, reaffirming earlier orders. Petitioners’ Concerns Transparency Issues: Advocate Prashant Bhushan (ADR) alleged that many forms were not filled by voters themselves and criticized the lack of clarity on accepted documents. Flood Impact: Petitioners sought an extension citing floods in Bihar that disrupted submissions. Form Restrictions: Advocate Nizam Pasha argued the ECI was improperly insisting on Form 6 alone, limiting scope for objections. Party Records: RJD’s counsel disputed the ECI’s claims of minimal objections, but the Court noted discrepancies in the party’s own records. ECI’s Response Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, countered that: 99.5% of Bihar’s 7.24 crore voters had already submitted documents. Claims and objections could still be filed beyond September 1 but would be considered during nominations. Extending the timeline would risk making the SIR process “unending.” Allegations of form discrepancies were “misleading,” as fresh forms were being circulated weekly to parties. Analysis Inclusivity vs. EfficiencyThe Court’s refusal to extend deadlines highlights tension between maintaining schedules and ensuring voter inclusiveness. Institutional TransparencyPersistent disputes over forms and record discrepancies underscore concerns about transparency in electoral processes. Judicial OversightThe Court’s reliance on PLVs and confidential reporting indicates a proactive role in safeguarding voter rights where administrative trust is low. Repercussions For Voters: PLVs may provide critical support for those lacking access or digital literacy, especially flood-affected communities. For Political Parties: Parties are likely to intensify scrutiny of deletions and procedural irregularities. For the ECI: The institution faces growing pressure to demonstrate transparency and accountability in its processes. Conclusion By ordering the deployment of paralegal volunteers while refusing to extend deadlines, the Supreme Court has attempted to strike a balance between procedural discipline and democratic inclusivity. With 65 lakh names under dispute and political tensions mounting, the Court’s September 8 review will be pivotal in determining whether these measures restore confidence in Bihar’s SIR exercise or further fuel controversy. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Calls for Paralegal Volunteers to Assist Voters in Bihar SIR Exercise Sada Law • September 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Iran Arrests Suspected Mossad Spies Amid Rising Regional Tensions Sadalaw • August 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments EU Refuses to Return Frozen Russian Assets Without War Reparations Sadalaw • August 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Calls for Paralegal Volunteers to Assist Voters in Bihar SIR Exercise Read More »

The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy.

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today 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 Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. A.K. NAIR & ORS Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation Iran Arrests Suspected Mossad Spies Amid Rising Regional Tensions EU Refuses to Return Frozen Russian Assets Without War Reparations Indonesia Protests Turn Deadly as Parliament Building Torched in Makassar Bolivia’s Opposition Leader Luis Fernando Camacho Released from Jail — A Political Turning Point U.S. Senator Roger Wicker Pushes Joint Weapons Production with Taiwan, Raising Tensions with China The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy.   Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra July 26, 2023 Introduction This case revolves around disputes concerning insurance claims for theft and fire at the business premises of Suresh Chand Jain. The insurer, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., denied or closed the claims, leading to litigation before consumer forums. After adverse orders from the State Commission (SCDRC) and the National Commission (NCDRC), the insurer approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution.The Supreme Court had to decide whether such petitions are maintainable or whether the insurer should first approach the jurisdictional High Court under Articles 226/227. Facts of the Case The complainant obtained two insurance policies (Standard Fire and Special Perils, and Burglary Insurance) worth ₹50 lakhs through Allahabad Bank. He informed the bank when he shifted goods to a new office in Bawana, Delhi. Incidents: 29 June 2012: Theft occurred. 18 October 2012: Fire broke out. The insurer: Rejected the theft claim. Closed the fire claim for lack of documents. The complainant approached SCDRC, Delhi demanding ₹49 lakh, compensation of ₹20 lakh, and interest. SCDRC Order (18 March 2016): Granted ₹41.31 lakh with 12% interest. Ordered ₹2 lakh compensation for mental agony. Directed insurer to finalize the fire claim of ₹4 lakh. NCDRC Order (16 January 2023): Dismissed the insurer’s appeal and upheld SCDRC’s ruling. The insurer bypassed the High Court and filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. Issues of the Case Whether the petitioner should first approach the High Court under Article 226/227 before coming to the Supreme Court? Whether a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 is maintainable against an NCDRC appellate order? Judgment The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, holding: 1. Appeal Structure under Consumer Protection Laws 1986 Act, Section 23 and 2019 Act, Section 67 allow appeals to the Supreme Court only from original orders of NCDRC. No further appeal lies to the Supreme Court against NCDRC appellate/revisional orders. 2. High Court as Proper Remedy Where NCDRC exercises appellate jurisdiction, the remedy lies before the High Court under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) or Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction). 3. Scope of Article 136 (Special Leave Jurisdiction) Article 136 is an exceptional discretionary remedy, not a substitute for statutory appeals. It applies only in cases of grave injustice or questions of public importance. Since no such exceptional circumstances existed here, the Court refused to entertain the SLP. 4. Deposit Refund As a condition for stay earlier, the insurer had deposited 50% of the claim amount. The Court directed this deposit be returned after verification since the SLP was dismissed. 5. Liberty to Approach High Court The petitioner was allowed to approach the jurisdictional High Court, if so advised. The Court clarified it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. Conclusion The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that: It should not act as a routine appellate body against NCDRC’s appellate decisions. Litigants must respect procedural hierarchy and approach High Courts under Articles 226/227. Article 136 is to be used sparingly, for exceptional cases only. This ruling ensures that the Supreme Court remains a constitutional court of last resort, while High Courts handle supervisory review of consumer appellate orders. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy. Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Army Sepoy for Habitual Absence: Discipline Paramount in Armed Forces Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order in Property Dispute: Reiterates Proper Court Fee Crucial for Maintainability Sada Law • August 31, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

The Supreme Court reiterates that there is no direct appeal against NCDRC appellate orders; instead, the High Court has the remedy. Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kashak Agarwala 29 AUG 2025 The Supreme Court of India grants journalist Abhisar Sharma four-week interim protection against arrest in Assam over a YouTube video, while directing him to challenge the FIR before the Gauhati High Court. Interim Protection by Supreme Court On Thursday, a Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh granted Abhisar Sharma a four-week interim protection against arrest in connection with a FIR filed over a YouTube video criticizing the Assam government. The Court declined to quash the FIR itself, clarifying that Sharma must approach the Gauhati High Court to challenge it. The Bench acknowledged his role as a journalist and stated that the protection was to ensure he could seek judicial relief without facing immediate arrest. FIR and Charges Invoked The FIR was registered on 21 August 2025, after Sharma criticized the Assam government for allotting 3,000 bighas of tribal land to a private entity and accused it of divisive politics. Charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) included: Section 152 BNS: Threatening sovereignty of the state Section 196 BNS: Encouragement of hostility between groups Section 197 BNS: Statements prejudicial to national integration The FIR alleged that Sharma mocked the government, ridiculed Ram Rajya, and encouraged communal hatred, negatively impacting national cohesion. Court Proceedings and Submissions Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued to annul the FIR and prevent multiple complaints arising from the same video. He emphasized the need for uniformity in prosecuting such cases. Justice Sundresh noted that even if the Supreme Court entertained the plea, the State could file another FIR, making the High Court the appropriate forum for challenging the FIR. The Bench granted interim protection for four weeks to allow Sharma to seek relief before the Gauhati High Court. Constitutional Challenge to Section 152 BNS Sharma contended that Section 152 BNS was unconstitutional, as it was a reform of the repealed Section 124A IPC, and argued that it is vague and overly broad, allowing potential misuse against critics. The petition invoked Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India, claiming violations of equality, freedom of speech, and due process. The Supreme Court issued notice to the Central Government, linking Sharma’s challenge to other similar cases pending before the Court. Petition Grounds The petition argued that: Sharma’s video criticism was factual and verifiable, containing no incitement to violence. Freedom of speech includes criticism of government policies and political decisions. Prosecution under Section 152 BNS for journalistic reporting, including potential life imprisonment, is disproportionate and unconstitutional. Next Steps Interim protection: Four weeks for Sharma to approach the Gauhati High Court to quash the FIR. Constitutional challenge: Section 152 BNS case to be considered by the Supreme Court. Representation: Advocate Sumeer Sodhi filed the petition on behalf of Sharma. This ruling highlights press freedom, proportionality in criminal law, and safeguards for journalists under India’s democratic framework. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Read More »

Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Ankita Bhati , Dev Raj Singh Bhati 13 July 2023 Introduction This case deals with the transfer of matrimonial and connected criminal proceedings on the ground of the wife’s convenience. The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principle that in matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience must be given paramount importance while deciding transfer petitions under Section 25 of the CPC. Facts The petitioner–wife sought transfer of two matrimonial cases filed by the husband from Noida (U.P.) to Solan (Himachal Pradesh), where she was residing. She contended that attending proceedings at Noida would cause undue hardship. Issue Whether matrimonial and connected criminal proceedings should be transferred to the place of residence of the wife, applying the principle of “wife’s convenience” in transfer petitions. Held The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petitions, directing that the matrimonial and criminal cases pending at Noida be transferred to the competent court at Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Key Takeaways In matrimonial disputes, wife’s convenience is a paramount consideration for transfer of cases. The Court reiterated its settled position that forcing a wife to travel long distances to contest cases causes hardship and is contrary to the interests of justice. Transfer of connected criminal proceedings ensures effective adjudication and avoids multiplicity of litigation. Conclusion The judgment reinforces the protective approach of the Supreme Court in matrimonial matters by prioritizing the wife’s convenience while deciding transfer petitions. It ensures that women are not burdened with unnecessary hardship in pursuing legal remedies, while also promoting judicial efficiency by consolidating related proceedings before one court. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Read More »

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

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

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

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

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM

Leave a Comment / Internship /

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM Sweta Kumari About the Internship Avneesh Arputham is an advocate on record in the Supreme Court of India. He has done his LLM in international commercial law from the London School of Economics (LSE). After working in the House of Commons, UK Parliament, he worked in Economic Laws Practice, and thereafter set up his independent litigation practice. He specializes in white-collar crime, environmental law, and constitutional law. The Internship commences from 1st September 2025. Preference will be given to interns looking for an offline/physical internship. Eligibility Candidates must be in their 3rd year or higher for a 5-year course, or in their 2nd year or higher for a 3-year course. Candidates having previous internship experience in the Supreme Court will be given preference. Location Bengali Market, New Delhi How to Apply? Interested candidates can email their CV along with a covering letter to office.avneesharputham@gmail.com. Never miss an opportunity! Click to join our whatsapp channel More Oppurtunities LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 1 2 3 Next »

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM Read More »

Supreme Court of India Allows Death Penalty Challenge Through Article 32 Petitions

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court of India Allows Death Penalty Challenge Through Article 32 Petitions Telangana High Court Rejects Wife’s ₹90 Lakh Alimony Plea, Dismisses Impotency Claim LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LEXCLAIM ADVOCATES, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT UMBRELLA LEGAL, MUMBAI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT THE OFFICE OF NITIN GOEL, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KOHLI AND KOHLI LAW ASSOCIATES, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT POOVAYYA & CO., BENGALURU & DELHI A New Era of Political Renewal: Young Democrats Challenge the Old Guard BJP Aims for 25% Vote Share in Kerala Local Body Elections Trump Names Political Aide Sergio Gor as U.S. Ambassador to India and Special Envoy for South & Central Asia Supreme Court of India Allows Death Penalty Challenge Through Article 32 Petitions Shristi singh 27 AUG 2025 In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India allowed death row convicts to challenge their sentences through Article 32 petitions, even after confirmation of the punishment. The judgment strengthens safeguards around the death penalty and reaffirms the right to life under Article 21. Historic Judgment: Death Row Convicts Can Use Article 32 On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark verdict in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India & Others. The Court allowed convicts facing the death penalty to file Article 32 petitions to challenge their sentences, even when their punishments had already been confirmed by the apex court. The ruling overturns the Court’s earlier 2017 decision that had upheld Dupare’s death sentence for the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl. Case Background: Vasanta Sampat Dupare In May 2017, Dupare was sentenced to death by the trial court for the rape and murder of a minor. The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, affirming lower court rulings. Dupare later filed an Article 32 petition, arguing that the sentencing court failed to consider mitigating factors such as his socio-economic background, mental health, and potential for reform. His plea relied on the precedent set in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), which emphasized balancing mitigating and aggravating factors before awarding capital punishment. Supreme Court’s Reasoning A three-judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled that: Article 32 as a Safeguard – Even though Article 32 is an extraordinary remedy, it can be invoked in cases where sentencing safeguards were violated. Right to Life under Article 21 – Sentencing must not compromise the convict’s right to life. Individualized justice is required, especially in capital punishment cases. Mitigating Factors Ignored – Courts must consider factors like mental health, socio-economic conditions, and reformation potential before awarding death. Rare Use of Article 32 – The Court clarified that reopening closed cases will only be allowed where serious procedural lapses undermine constitutional rights. “Reopening will be reserved for only those cases where breaches are so serious that, if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused’s basic rights to life.” Directions Issued by the Court The Supreme Court set aside its May 3, 2017 order affirming Dupare’s death penalty and directed: The case be assigned to a new Bench by the Chief Justice of India. A fresh hearing on sentencing will be conducted in line with Manoj (2022). Mitigating circumstances must be given due weight before deciding on punishment. Importance of the Ruling 1. Enhanced Safeguards in Death Penalty Cases The verdict ensures that death sentences cannot be imposed without due consideration of individual circumstances of the convict. 2. Strengthening Article 32 By allowing challenges even after confirmation of sentence, the Court reaffirmed its role as the guardian of fundamental rights. 3. Reducing Arbitrary Use of Capital Punishment The decision ensures that the death penalty is reserved for the rarest of rare cases, preventing arbitrary or mechanical sentencing. 4. Balancing Justice with Finality While respecting judicial finality, the Court emphasized that fairness and human rights outweigh procedural rigidity in matters involving irreversible punishments. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s ruling in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India marks a turning point in India’s death penalty jurisprudence. By allowing Article 32 petitions even after confirmation of a death sentence, the Court reinforced that protection of life and due process take precedence over finality of judgments. This decision makes India’s capital punishment system more humane, constitutional, and just, ensuring that no individual is deprived of life without exhaustive judicial scrutiny. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court of India Allows Death Penalty Challenge Through Article 32 Petitions Sadalaw • August 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Telangana High Court Rejects Wife’s ₹90 Lakh Alimony Plea, Dismisses Impotency Claim Sadalaw • August 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments A New Era of Political Renewal: Young Democrats Challenge the Old Guard Sadalaw • August 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court of India Allows Death Penalty Challenge Through Article 32 Petitions Read More »

Supreme Court to Hear Fresh Plea on Electoral Bonds Transparency

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court to Hear Fresh Plea on Electoral Bonds Transparency Chirag Paswan’s LJP-R Joins NDA Strategy Meeting Ahead of Bihar Assembly Elections Election Commission of India Delists 334 Unrecognised Political Parties Across the Country JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DENTONS LINK LEGAL, MUMBAI JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MZM LEGAL LLP, MUMBAI INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT THE YUVACRACY CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW OFFICE OF AARUSHI S. DESAI, AHMEDABAD LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LEAD INDIA INDIA Bloc Strategy Meeting Held at Rahul Gandhi’s Residence LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GEETANSH NAGPAL LAW CHAMBERS Supreme Court to Hear Fresh Plea on Electoral Bonds Transparency Shristi singh 10 AUG 2025 The Supreme Court of India will hear a petition challenging the government’s electoral bonds scheme, reigniting the debate on transparency in political funding and donor disclosure. Introduction The Supreme Court of India will on Monday hear a new petition challenging the government’s electoral bonds scheme.Filed by a coalition of civil society groups and former bureaucrats, the plea demands that political parties disclose donor details to promote accountability and prevent anonymous corporate influence in elections. Scene Outside the Supreme Court On Friday morning, lawyers and activists gathered on the lawns of the Supreme Court, holding placards reading “Democracy Needs Transparency” and “End Anonymous Funding.”The case is listed before a bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, with Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B.V. Nagarathna. This hearing comes less than two years after the court struck down parts of the scheme — a ruling the government sought to bypass via legislative amendments in early 2025. Background: The Electoral Bonds Scheme Introduced in 2018, electoral bonds allow individuals and companies to donate to political parties through banking channels without publicly revealing their identities.While the government claims the system curbs black money, critics argue it enables opaque funding and shields donors from scrutiny. In 2024, the Supreme Court directed the State Bank of India to release donor and recipient data, revealing a concentration of funding towards ruling parties.In March 2025, Parliament amended the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to restore donor anonymity citing “national security and privacy” — sparking protests by opposition parties and transparency advocates. Petitioners’ Core Arguments The petitioners contend that the amended scheme violates democratic principles: Right to Information – Citizens must know who funds political parties that seek to govern. Threat to Electoral Equality – Large corporate donations without disclosure tilt the field towards wealthier parties. Risk of Policy Capture – Secret funding could influence laws to benefit select donors. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, stated: “Political finance without transparency breeds corruption. The amendments are unconstitutional and must be struck down.” Government’s Expected Defence The Union government is likely to argue that the scheme eliminates cash-based donations and ensures traceable bank transactions.Officials suggest donor privacy prevents “political retribution” against corporate contributors.BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla defended the system: “We have brought clean money into politics through banking channels. Opposition outrage is selective.” Opposition’s Reaction Indian National Congress leader Jairam Ramesh hailed the hearing as “a step towards saving Indian democracy from becoming a corporate auction.” Aam Aadmi Party and All India Trinamool Congress also welcomed the move. Regional parties like the Naga People’s Front and Asom Gana Parishad expressed mixed views, citing funding concerns for smaller outfits. Expert Analysis Dr. R.K. Sanjoy (Imphal-based commentator): “In smaller states, modest donations can decide contests. Opaque funding benefits nationally connected parties.” Prof. Meera Sood (election law expert): “The court will assess if donor privacy outweighs citizens’ right to know — a test of proportionality in constitutional law.” Public Opinion Rajesh Jain (trader, Guwahati’s Panbazar): “If the money comes via banks, it’s legal — anonymity doesn’t matter.” Nabanita Saikia (college student): “We vote based on trust. Without knowing fund sources, how can we trust policies?” Looking Ahead The bench may fast-track proceedings, given the implications for upcoming state elections in Bihar, Maharashtra, and Assam.A verdict could reshape India’s political funding landscape, especially in regions where close contests are common. Conclusion This hearing is more than a legal dispute — it is a constitutional test of transparency in democracy. With political power and corporate interests at stake, the judgment could be among the most influential decisions ahead of the 2029 general elections. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court to Hear Fresh Plea on Electoral Bonds Transparency Sadalaw • August 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Chirag Paswan’s LJP-R Joins NDA Strategy Meeting Ahead of Bihar Assembly Elections Sadalaw • August 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Election Commission of India Delists 334 Unrecognised Political Parties Across the Country Sadalaw • August 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court to Hear Fresh Plea on Electoral Bonds Transparency Read More »

Supreme Court Directs States to Resolve Fast Track Court Backlogs in Gender Crime Cases

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Directs States to Resolve Fast Track Court Backlogs in Gender Crime Cases LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT THELUXETRAILS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SINGULARITY LEGAL, MUMBAI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UNITED AIRLINES, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT CHANCHLANI LAW WORLD, PUNE INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SINTELLECT GOODWILL LLP, INDORE Supreme Court Orders States to Clear Backlog in Fast Track Courts for Gender Crimes — Justice Can’t Wait Delhi High Court Seeks Accountability for Custodial Deaths — Justice Beyond the Bars LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA & SINGH LAW CHAMBERS, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GAURAV SHARMA LAW OFFICES Supreme Court Directs States to Resolve Fast Track Court Backlogs in Gender Crime Cases Kashish Jahan 01 AUG 2025 The Supreme Court of India has ordered States to address the backlog in fast track courts handling gender-based crimes. This decisive action reinforces that justice for women must not be delayed. Fast Track Courts Failing to Deliver Gender Justice On 25 July 2025, the Supreme Court of India criticized several Indian States and Union Territories for failing to ensure the proper functioning of Fast Track Courts (FTCs) set up to handle sexual offences and crimes against women. Justice Renu Awasthi called the growing backlog a “betrayal” of the promise made to survivors after the 2012 Nirbhaya case, when stricter laws and special courts were introduced to ensure timely justice. Data Highlights Stark Gaps in Implementation A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a women’s rights coalition exposed significant lapses: Over 50% of FTCs created after 2013 and 2018 remain vacant or under-staffed Rape trials often take 2 to 3 years to conclude Survivors experience repeated trauma due to prolonged proceedings The National Commission for Women (NCW) also highlighted that many States have not established child-friendly courts or witness protection units, despite obligations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). Supreme Court’s Directives to the States The Court issued clear and time-bound instructions: Submit updated data on court vacancies and judicial appointments Share timelines for filling posts in fast track courts Implement witness protection mechanisms and create child-friendly courtrooms immediately Justice Awasthi reminded all States that justice for women is a constitutional mandate, not a matter of budget availability. Rights under Article 15 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be upheld with urgency. What Lies Ahead The case is scheduled to return in August 2025. Should States continue to delay compliance, the Court may appoint special monitoring panels to oversee implementation directly. Rights groups see this ruling as a turning point—one that may finally align India’s strong legal framework with the efficient and sensitive justice delivery that survivors of gender crimes have long awaited. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Directs States to Resolve Fast Track Court Backlogs in Gender Crime Cases Sadalaw • August 1, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Orders States to Clear Backlog in Fast Track Courts for Gender Crimes — Justice Can’t Wait Sadalaw • July 31, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Seeks Accountability for Custodial Deaths — Justice Beyond the Bars Sadalaw • July 31, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Directs States to Resolve Fast Track Court Backlogs in Gender Crime Cases Read More »

Supreme Court Orders States to Clear Backlog in Fast Track Courts for Gender Crimes — Justice Can’t Wait

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Orders States to Clear Backlog in Fast Track Courts for Gender Crimes — Justice Can’t Wait Delhi High Court Seeks Accountability for Custodial Deaths — Justice Beyond the Bars LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT MANDLA & SINGH LAW CHAMBERS, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT GAURAV SHARMA LAW OFFICES LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT HIKMAT HELPING HANDS FOUNDATION LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JSA, BENGALURU Supreme Court Presses States on Governors’ Discretion: Federal Structure in Question Supreme Court Questions Centre on Algorithmic Policing and AI Bias: A Step Toward Digital Rights Reform LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT BOBBLE AI INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SETTLEMENTOFLOAN Supreme Court Orders States to Clear Backlog in Fast Track Courts for Gender Crimes — Justice Can’t Wait Kashish Jahan 31 JULY 2025 The Supreme Court has directed States to address vacancies in fast track courts for gender-based crimes, citing severe delays in justice. The ruling pushes for urgent compliance with constitutional promises under Articles 15 and 21. Fast Track Courts, Delayed Justice On 25 July 2025, the Supreme Court of India expressed deep concern over the poor functioning of fast track courts (FTCs) handling sexual offences and crimes against women. Justice Renu Awasthi called the backlog a “betrayal” of the legislative promise made to survivors, especially after the Nirbhaya case led to stricter laws. Despite dedicated courts and funding, survivors are still trapped in legal delays, often facing years-long trials that add layers of trauma. Shocking Data Revealed by Women’s Rights Groups A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a coalition of women’s rights organizations revealed systemic negligence: Over 50% of FTCs established after 2013 and 2018 remain understaffed or vacant. Rape cases often continue for 2–3 years, defeating the purpose of “fast-track” trials. The National Commission for Women (NCW) reported widespread non-compliance with laws mandating: Child-friendly courtrooms Witness protection systems This failure persists despite special funds and legal mandates specifically designed to ensure speedy and sensitive justice. Supreme Court’s Tough Stand and Orders The Bench issued clear instructions to State governments: Submit updated data on judicial vacancies and infrastructure. Set timelines for filling vacant positions in FTCs. Implement child-friendly facilities in courtrooms. Activate witness protection programs immediately. Justice Awasthi reminded the States that dignity and access to justice are not “budget leftovers” — they are fundamental rights under Article 15 (protection from discrimination) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India. What Comes Next: The August Deadline The matter will be heard again in August. If States fail to comply with the orders, the Court has indicated it may appoint special panels to monitor implementation directly. Women’s rights activists and legal experts believe this ruling is a crucial turning point. It pushes for real-time justice, aligning strong laws with effective and compassionate courtroom processes. Conclusion: Matching Laws with Action India has made legal strides in the wake of brutal crimes like Nirbhaya, but enforcement lags behind. The Supreme Court’s intervention signals that gender justice must move beyond promises — it must be swift, sensitive, and survivor-centric. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Orders States to Clear Backlog in Fast Track Courts for Gender Crimes — Justice Can’t Wait Sadalaw • July 31, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Seeks Accountability for Custodial Deaths — Justice Beyond the Bars Sadalaw • July 31, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Presses States on Governors’ Discretion: Federal Structure in Question Sadalaw • July 30, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Orders States to Clear Backlog in Fast Track Courts for Gender Crimes — Justice Can’t Wait Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote