sadalawpublications.com

Supreme Court of India

Can Sedition Appeals Continue Despite Stay on Section 124A IPC? Supreme Court to Clarify

Trending Today Can Sedition Appeals Continue Despite Stay on Section 124A IPC? Supreme Court to Clarify JOB OPPORTUNITY AT VERTEXLEGAL LLP, NEW DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DIGITAL INDIA CORPORATION LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RBL BANK LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT REVX CAPITAL LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT UNESCO CHAIR, NLU, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT HEADS UP FOR TAILS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT TITLEWIZE LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ASA ADVOCATES Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Thiruchendur Temple Kumbhabhishekam Timing Dispute Prabhat Kumar Biltoria 7 JULY 2025 The Supreme Court of India is set to clarify whether appeals under the stayed Section 124A IPC (sedition law) can proceed. The outcome could shape future constitutional interpretations and protect fundamental rights. Introduction: Section 124A IPC and Its Legal Standstill In a major legal development, the Supreme Court of India is poised to address a crucial question: Can appeals continue under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even though the sedition provision has been stayed since May 2022? The law in question, Section 124A, is a colonial-era sedition clause that has been the subject of intense legal scrutiny and criticism in recent years. Background: The Sedition Stay and Its Impact In May 2022, the apex court issued a blanket stay on all pending trials and new FIRs under Section 124A while it undertakes a constitutional review. However, this stay order has left uncertainty around cases where appeals are pending — particularly appeals against past convictions. This legal grey area came into focus with a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Safdar Nagori, a former student leader convicted of sedition in 2017. Nagori has now spent over 18 years in prison. The Case of Safdar Nagori Although arguments in Nagori’s appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court had already concluded, the final judgment has been indefinitely delayed. The delay stems from the 2022 Supreme Court order in the case of S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, which stayed all proceedings under Section 124A. Representing Nagori, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat argued that the 2022 stay was not meant to halt appeals where hearings had concluded. He stressed that prolonged detention without judgment infringes on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Supreme Court’s Response and Upcoming Hearing A bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan acknowledged the urgency of the matter and scheduled the next hearing for July 25, 2025. The key issue is whether the 2022 stay applies only to ongoing trials and fresh prosecutions or whether it also halts appellate proceedings. Why This Matters: Constitutional and Legal Consequences This case carries significant constitutional implications: A ruling that permits appeals to continue could reinforce judicial accountability and protect the rights of long-term detainees. It would also prevent misuse of procedural delays that deny justice to those already convicted. The decision could serve as a landmark precedent for how Indian courts interpret stays on laws under constitutional challenge. Awaiting Clarity: What’s at Stake? The legal community, civil rights activists, and those impacted by past sedition convictions await the Supreme Court’s verdict. A clear directive on this issue will help courts uniformly handle sedition-related appeals until the final constitutionality of Section 124A is determined. This ruling may shape not only the future of sedition law in India but also broader questions of justice, liberty, and procedural fairness. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Can Sedition Appeals Continue Despite Stay on Section 124A IPC? Supreme Court to Clarify Sadalaw • July 7, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Thiruchendur Temple Kumbhabhishekam Timing Dispute Sadalaw • July 5, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi Petrol Pumps Challenge Penalties on End-of-Life Vehicles in High Court Sadalaw • July 5, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Can Sedition Appeals Continue Despite Stay on Section 124A IPC? Supreme Court to Clarify Read More »

Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Thiruchendur Temple Kumbhabhishekam Timing Dispute

Trending Today Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Thiruchendur Temple Kumbhabhishekam Timing Dispute Delhi Petrol Pumps Challenge Penalties on End-of-Life Vehicles in High Court LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DELHI GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ADV PRIYA NAGAR LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KARAN GUPTA LAW CHAMBERS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MASTERCARD, PUNE LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT MALHOTRA AND MALHOTRO LAW FIRM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU RANCHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT HIMT GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SHREE CEMENT LTD Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Thiruchendur Temple Kumbhabhishekam Timing Dispute Prabhat Kumar Biltoria 5 JULY 2025 The Supreme Court of India refuses to determine the “auspicious time” for the Thiruchendur Temple consecration, reaffirming judicial non-interference in religious affairs. Read more on the legal and cultural implications of this ruling. Supreme Court Refuses to Decide on Temple Ritual Timing On 3 July 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition challenging the scheduled timing of the Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) at the historic Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Thiruchendur, Tamil Nadu. The Court made it clear that constitutional courts have no authority to determine what qualifies as an “auspicious time” for religious ceremonies, emphasizing the judiciary’s restrained approach in spiritual and ritual matters. Background of the Dispute: Vidhayāhar’s Petition The case was initiated by the Vidhayāhar, a hereditary temple ritual authority, who challenged the consecration timing of 6:00 to 6:47 a.m. on 7 July 2025. He argued that the chosen time was astrologically inauspicious and proposed the Abhijit Muhurtham, from 12:05 to 12:45 p.m., as more spiritually appropriate. The dispute arose after a five-member expert committee, appointed by the Madras High Court, recommended the morning slot by a 4:1 majority. Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Decide What Is “Auspicious” A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh firmly rejected the petition, stating: “We cannot decide what is auspicious.” The Court reaffirmed that matters of faith and religious timing fall outside judicial purview and should be left to agamic experts and temple authorities. It also declined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, citing insufficient legal grounds. High Court’s Role and the Importance of Consultation Although the Supreme Court refused to intervene, it upheld the Madras High Court’s directive requiring that the Vidhayāhar be consulted in writing before finalizing any future festival decisions. This nuance distinguishes between draft opinions and final recommendations, reinforcing the role of ritual custodians in temple affairs while maintaining the administrative hierarchy. Broader Implications: Secularism and Religious Autonomy This judgment reiterates the secular framework of India’s judiciary, which respects religious autonomy in the absence of civil or fundamental rights violations. It also upholds the traditional governance of temples through agamic traditions, expert consensus, and established customs, reinforcing the boundary between law and religion. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene in the Kumbhabhishekam timing dispute reaffirms the judiciary’s non-involvement in ritual matters, especially when constitutional rights are not at stake. As the consecration proceeds on 7 July 2025 as scheduled, the ruling serves as a precedent emphasizing respect for religious tradition and autonomy within the legal framework. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Thiruchendur Temple Kumbhabhishekam Timing Dispute Sadalaw • July 5, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi Petrol Pumps Challenge Penalties on End-of-Life Vehicles in High Court Sadalaw • July 5, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Orders Government Action on Deepfake Menace in India Sadalaw • July 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Thiruchendur Temple Kumbhabhishekam Timing Dispute Read More »

Supreme Court Orders Government Action on Deepfake Menace in India

Trending Today Supreme Court Orders Government Action on Deepfake Menace in India Karnataka High Court Halts BBMP’s Controversial Demolition Drive in Bengaluru Kerala High Court Upholds Transgender Student’s Right to Hostel Accommodation LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ASTRO ARUN PANDIT LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT STRAIVE INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT LEX LAW OFFICES LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT PATINE LAW OFFICES LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT VANKINA, ALLU & PARTNERS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SNDT WOMEN’S UNIVERSITY, MUMBAI CALL FOR PAPERS BY IILM LAW JOURNAL Supreme Court Orders Government Action on Deepfake Menace in India KASHISH JAHAN 4 JULY 2025 The Supreme Court of India directs the Centre to regulate deepfake technology with stricter laws and accountability measures, marking a major step in protecting citizens’ privacy and democracy. Deepfakes: A New Threat to Privacy and Democracy In a significant move, the Supreme Court of India has asked the Central Government of India to frame robust legal guidelines to tackle the growing threat of deepfakes. These AI-generated videos, often used for misinformation, defamation, and harassment, are raising serious concerns about digital safety, privacy, and democratic integrity. The Court warned that if left unregulated, deepfakes could cause irreparable damage to individual reputations and erode public trust in media and institutions. Rise of Deepfakes: A Looming Crisis in India India has seen a sharp rise in AI-generated content, especially deepfake videos targeting celebrities, politicians, and even ordinary citizens. Petitioners highlighted that the current Information Technology laws are insufficient to address the complexities of this new form of digital manipulation. Experts fear that deepfakes in elections could be used to amplify fake news, manipulate public opinion, and worsen political polarisation. Supreme Court Calls for Legal Reforms The bench acknowledged that the current legal infrastructure is outdated in dealing with AI-based threats. The judges emphasized the need for: Clear rules and penalties for the creation and distribution of deepfakes Accountability mechanisms for individuals and platforms Laws that balance free speech with protection from misuse This legal push reflects the Court’s commitment to tech accountability in the digital age. Accountability of Social Media Platforms The Court didn’t spare social media platforms either. It criticized major tech companies for their slow response to user complaints about deepfake content. The bench clarified that intermediary status cannot be used to escape responsibility. Instead, platforms like Meta, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) must adopt advanced detection tools, quick takedown mechanisms, and align with global best practices to prevent misuse. Government’s Response and Future Outlook The Solicitor General of India assured the Court that the Centre is already working on new IT Rules and will soon consult stakeholders, tech experts, and civil society groups to draft effective legislation. The government also emphasized that the goal is to protect users without hindering AI innovation. A Crucial Step Toward Digital Safety This proactive intervention by the Supreme Court marks a turning point in India’s digital governance. As deepfakes become more realistic and accessible, strong regulatory frameworks are essential to preserve individual rights, ensure ethical AI usage, and protect the democratic process. Whether the government’s upcoming measures strike the right balance between innovation and regulation will be closely watched. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Orders Government Action on Deepfake Menace in India Sadalaw • July 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Karnataka High Court Halts BBMP’s Controversial Demolition Drive in Bengaluru Sadalaw • July 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Kerala High Court Upholds Transgender Student’s Right to Hostel Accommodation Sadalaw • July 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Orders Government Action on Deepfake Menace in India Read More »

Supreme Court of India Upholds Amicable Separation as Valid Outcome of Mediation in Matrimonial Cases

Trending Today Supreme Court of India Upholds Amicable Separation as Valid Outcome of Mediation in Matrimonial Cases Delhi High Court Orders ₹65.9 Crore Transfer to Canada in Cross-Border COVID-19 Fraud Case Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Doctor Transfers, Reinforces Equity in Government Postings Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Nine in Nagpur Riots Case, Denounces Mob Justice Supreme Court Reviews Contempt Plea Over Chandigarh UT Quota Conversion in NEET-PG Admissions Supreme Court of India Upholds Lawyer-Client Privilege and Legal Profession Autonomy in Landmark Ruling Madras High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh for Illegal Detention, Reinforces Right to Liberty Supreme Court Clarifies Dowry Death Law: Presumption Only if Dowry Demand Proven Delhi High Court: Social Media Users Liable for Defamation, Freedom of Speech Has Limits Thiruchendur Temple Consecration Dispute: Vidhayahar Challenges HC-Approved Timing in Supreme Court Supreme Court of India Upholds Amicable Separation as Valid Outcome of Mediation in Matrimonial Cases KASHISH JAHAN 27 June 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court of India has redefined the purpose of mediation in matrimonial disputes, affirming that amicable separation is a valid and dignified outcome. A landmark ruling that reshapes family law and promotes mental well-being. Supreme Court of India Affirms Amicable Separation as a Valid Outcome of Mediation In a landmark decision that may transform how family law disputes are resolved in India, the Supreme Court of India has declared that mediation in matrimonial matters is not solely meant for reconciliation—it can also lead to an amicable separation if circumstances demand it. Shifting Focus: Mediation is About Resolution, Not Just Reunion While presiding over a case involving marital discord, Justice K.V. Viswanathan emphasized the importance of emotional and mental well-being in marriage. He stated that compelling unwilling spouses to reunite through mediation could be detrimental. Instead, he noted that the core aim of mediation is to facilitate a peaceful and constructive resolution—be it reconciliation or lawful separation. Justice N.K. Singh Supports Structured Dispute Resolution Supporting this perspective, Justice N.K. Singh added that matrimonial conflicts, like commercial disputes, deserve structured dispute resolution mechanisms. He emphasized that the outcome of such processes should align with the best interests of the individuals involved, not with traditional or societal expectations. Impact on Family Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution in India This progressive ruling carries major implications for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in personal law cases. It is particularly relevant in matters involving domestic violence, mutual incompatibility, and the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Empowering Individuals, Especially Women, to Choose Dignity By legitimizing amicable separation as an acceptable outcome of mediation, the judgment empowers individuals—especially women—to make choices that prioritize their dignity, mental health, and emotional freedom. It removes the stigma around separation and paves the way for a more compassionate and realistic interpretation of matrimonial law in India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court of India Upholds Amicable Separation as Valid Outcome of Mediation in Matrimonial Cases Sada Law • June 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Delhi High Court Orders ₹65.9 Crore Transfer to Canada in Cross-Border COVID-19 Fraud Case Sada Law • June 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Doctor Transfers, Reinforces Equity in Government Postings Sada Law • June 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court of India Upholds Amicable Separation as Valid Outcome of Mediation in Matrimonial Cases Read More »

Supreme Court of India Upholds Lawyer-Client Privilege and Legal Profession Autonomy in Landmark Ruling

Trending Today Supreme Court of India Upholds Lawyer-Client Privilege and Legal Profession Autonomy in Landmark Ruling Madras High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh for Illegal Detention, Reinforces Right to Liberty Supreme Court Clarifies Dowry Death Law: Presumption Only if Dowry Demand Proven Delhi High Court: Social Media Users Liable for Defamation, Freedom of Speech Has Limits Thiruchendur Temple Consecration Dispute: Vidhayahar Challenges HC-Approved Timing in Supreme Court Kerala High Court Empowers Muslim Women: Khula Divorce Valid Without Husband’s Consent Orissa High Court Slams ‘Bulldozer Justice’, Orders ₹2 Lakh Salary Recovery from Tahasildar for Illegal Demolition LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DMD ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT SINGHANIA & PARTNERS LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT K.L.E. SOCIETY’S LAW COLLEGES Supreme Court of India Upholds Lawyer-Client Privilege and Legal Profession Autonomy in Landmark Ruling PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 27 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India defends the autonomy of the legal profession and lawyer-client privilege in a landmark suo motu order, setting a precedent against coercive investigative tactics. Supreme Court of India Safeguards Legal Profession and Lawyer-Client Privilege In a pivotal move, the Supreme Court of India issued a strongly worded suo motu order protecting the independence of the legal profession and the inviolability of the lawyer-client privilege. The Court ruled that summoning lawyers solely for giving legal advice endangers the justice system and violates constitutional safeguards. Case Triggered by Gujarat Police Notice Under BNSS Act The issue arose after the Ahmedabad police served a Gujarat-based attorney a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS Act. The lawyer was summoned to the SC/ST Cell solely for securing bail for his client in a financial matter, despite having no further involvement. This prompted intervention from a bench led by Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, who deemed the summons a “prima facie” violation of legal confidentiality and constitutional rights. Legal Profession: A Pillar of the Justice System The Court emphasized that the legal profession is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. It reiterated that communications between lawyers and clients are protected under statutory and common-law privilege, making such coercive summonses unlawful. Key Constitutional Questions Referred to Chief Justice The matter has been escalated to Chief Justice B.R. Gavai with two key constitutional questions: Can an investigating agency summon a lawyer solely for offering legal advice? Is judicial oversight necessary if the lawyer’s involvement goes beyond advisory roles? To resolve this, opinions have been sought from top legal bodies and officials including the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Bar Council of India, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), and SCAORA. Temporary Relief and Wider Implications for Legal Rights In a protective interim measure, the Supreme Court has temporarily stayed the Gujarat notice. This sets an important precedent against coercive investigative tactics targeting attorneys. This decision follows recent controversy where the Enforcement Directorate summoned prominent lawyers, only to retract after facing legal backlash. These actions raised widespread concerns about the erosion of lawyer-client confidentiality and professional independence. This landmark ruling reinforces the autonomy of the legal profession in India and strengthens protections surrounding confidential legal advice, vital for upholding the rule of law. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court of India Upholds Lawyer-Client Privilege and Legal Profession Autonomy in Landmark Ruling Sada Law • June 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Madras High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh for Illegal Detention, Reinforces Right to Liberty Sada Law • June 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Clarifies Dowry Death Law: Presumption Only if Dowry Demand Proven Sada Law • June 27, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court of India Upholds Lawyer-Client Privilege and Legal Profession Autonomy in Landmark Ruling Read More »

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

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

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

Supreme Court Judgment on Union of India vs Union Carbide Corporation (2023) | Bhopal Gas Tragedy Settlement & Legal Finality

Trending Today Supreme Court Judgment on Union of India vs Union Carbide Corporation (2023) | Bhopal Gas Tragedy Settlement & Legal Finality Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court Judgment in Directorate of Enforcement vs M. Gopal Reddy (2023) Supreme Court Rules on Builder’s Liability and Mandatory Bank Deposits in K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga Case (2023) Supreme Court Judgment on District Judge Appointment: Only 10% Posts Through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Allowed – Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Supreme Court Judgment on Bail Policy Strategy: Ensuring Timely Release of Undertrial Prisoners in India (January 2023) Naim Ahmed v. State of Delhi: Supreme Court Ruling on Consent and False Rape Allegations under IPC Section 376 Supreme Court Strikes Down Assam’s Rural Health Act: Only MBBS Holders Can Practice Modern Medicine US Court Convicts 6 NRIs in $15 Million Hawala Scam Tied to Dark Web and Money Laundering Supreme Court Ruling: Land Ownership Requires Valid Title, Not Just Registration K.T. Rama Rao Under Fresh Scrutiny in ₹55 Crore Formula E Probe: ACB Investigates Public-Private Deal Irregularities Supreme Court Judgment on Union of India vs Union Carbide Corporation (2023) | Bhopal Gas Tragedy Settlement & Legal Finality NISHA KUMARI 18 June 2025 Explore the 2023 Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. Union Carbide Corporation, reaffirming the 1989 Bhopal Gas Tragedy settlement. Understand its legal implications, curative jurisdiction limits, and government accountability in mass tort cases. Overview of the Case The 2023 judgment in Union of India & Ors vs. Union Carbide Corporation marked a pivotal moment in India’s legal response to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy—one of the world’s deadliest industrial disasters. On the night of December 2–3, 1984, a catastrophic gas leak from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, resulted in thousands of deaths and long-term health damage to countless victims. In 1989, a $470 million settlement was reached between the Union of India and Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). However, over time, concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of that compensation, leading to a curative petition filed in 2010. Background and Legal History The Bhopal Gas Leak: A Brief Recap The toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas leak exposed over half a million people, resulting in long-term environmental and health consequences. Following years of legal battles, the Supreme Court of India approved the 1989 settlement, emphasizing closure and certainty. Union of India’s Curative Petition (2010) Decades later, the Indian government argued that the settlement was based on outdated data and failed to address continuing damages. It sought additional compensation, invoking the Court’s curative jurisdiction to reopen the case. Key Legal Issues The Supreme Court addressed several critical questions: Can the 1989 settlement be reopened due to alleged under-compensation? Does the principle of legal finality override curative claims? Can Dow Chemical Company, UCC’s successor, be held liable? Is the Union of India accountable for failures in relief and rehabilitation? Arguments Presented Union of India (Petitioner) The 1989 compensation was based on underestimated figures. Victims continue to suffer from severe health issues. The burden of compensation should not fall on taxpayers. Union Carbide Corporation (Respondent) The 1989 settlement was legally binding and upheld by the Court multiple times. No new legal grounds justify reopening a 34-year-old agreement. Dow Chemical was not a party to the original settlement and cannot be held liable retroactively. Supreme Court Judgment (March 14, 2023) The Supreme Court of India dismissed the curative petition filed by the Union of India. The Court upheld the 1989 settlement and refused to reassess the matter. Key Takeaways from the Judgment 1. Finality of Legal Settlements The Court stressed that reopening settled cases after decades could threaten the integrity of the legal system. It reaffirmed the finality of the 1989 agreement, previously upheld in 1991. 2. Limits of Curative Jurisdiction Curative petitions are reserved for cases of gross miscarriage of justice. The Court ruled that no such miscarriage had occurred here. 3. Government’s Moral Obligation The judgment criticized the government’s failure to utilize previously allocated funds efficiently and emphasized that future relief efforts are the state’s responsibility, not UCC’s. 4. No Ruling on Dow Chemicals’ Liability Since Dow Chemicals was not part of the original case, the Court refrained from passing judgment on its potential liability. Conclusion The 2023 verdict in Union of India vs. Union Carbide Corporation underscores the importance of judicial consistency, legal closure, and state accountability in mass tort litigation. The ruling reinforces that settlements, once judicially endorsed, cannot be reopened casually—highlighting the Supreme Court’s commitment to legal certainty while urging better governance in managing public tragedies. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Judgment on Union of India vs Union Carbide Corporation (2023) | Bhopal Gas Tragedy Settlement & Legal Finality Sada Law • June 18, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court Judgment in Directorate of Enforcement vs M. Gopal Reddy (2023) Sada Law • June 18, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules on Builder’s Liability and Mandatory Bank Deposits in K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga Case (2023) Sada Law • June 18, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Judgment on Union of India vs Union Carbide Corporation (2023) | Bhopal Gas Tragedy Settlement & Legal Finality Read More »

Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court Judgment in Directorate of Enforcement vs M. Gopal Reddy (2023)

Trending Today Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court Judgment in Directorate of Enforcement vs M. Gopal Reddy (2023) Supreme Court Rules on Builder’s Liability and Mandatory Bank Deposits in K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga Case (2023) Supreme Court Judgment on District Judge Appointment: Only 10% Posts Through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Allowed – Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Supreme Court Judgment on Bail Policy Strategy: Ensuring Timely Release of Undertrial Prisoners in India (January 2023) Naim Ahmed v. State of Delhi: Supreme Court Ruling on Consent and False Rape Allegations under IPC Section 376 Supreme Court Strikes Down Assam’s Rural Health Act: Only MBBS Holders Can Practice Modern Medicine US Court Convicts 6 NRIs in $15 Million Hawala Scam Tied to Dark Web and Money Laundering Supreme Court Ruling: Land Ownership Requires Valid Title, Not Just Registration K.T. Rama Rao Under Fresh Scrutiny in ₹55 Crore Formula E Probe: ACB Investigates Public-Private Deal Irregularities Legal Action in Kedarnath Helicopter Crash: Aviation Safety Under Scrutiny After Tragedy Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court Judgment in Directorate of Enforcement vs M. Gopal Reddy (2023) NISHA KUMARI 18 June 2025 Explore the Supreme Court of India’s landmark ruling on the applicability of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), to anticipatory bail applications. Understand how this judgment impacts bail provisions in money laundering cases. Introduction The Supreme Court of India recently clarified a crucial aspect of bail law concerning money laundering offences. In the case of Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy and Another (24 February 2023), the Court ruled on whether Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) applies to anticipatory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This judgment reinforces strict bail conditions in money laundering cases and limits anticipatory bail availability for accused persons. Background of the Case Facts of the Case This case arose from an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Bhopal, in relation to a ₹1020 crore e-tender scam. The scam involved collusion between officials managing the Madhya Pradesh government’s e-procurement portal and private companies, including M/s Max Mantena Micro JV, Hyderabad. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) launched a money laundering investigation under the PMLA, conducting multiple raids and seizing evidence. M. Gopal Reddy, an accused and former Additional Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh’s Water Resources Department, sought anticipatory bail from the Telangana High Court. The High Court granted bail, ruling that Section 45’s stringent conditions did not apply to anticipatory bail. The Enforcement Directorate challenged this order in the Supreme Court. Legal Issue Does Section 45 of the PMLA Apply to Anticipatory Bail? The core legal question was whether Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes strict bail conditions, applies equally to anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 438 of the CrPC. Supreme Court Judgment Overruling of Earlier Precedents The Supreme Court overturned the Telangana High Court’s decision, ruling that Section 45 of the PMLA applies fully to anticipatory bail. The Court observed that reliance on the Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018) judgment was incorrect because it was overruled by the Constitution Bench’s decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), which upheld the constitutional validity of the amended Section 45. Mandatory Bail Conditions Under Section 45 The Court emphasized the mandatory twin conditions for bail under Section 45(1) of the PMLA: The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application. The Court must be convinced that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. Failure to meet these conditions renders the grant of anticipatory bail invalid in PMLA cases. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s ruling firmly establishes that the stringent bail conditions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply equally to anticipatory bail. This decision reinforces the rigorous approach needed to tackle money laundering offences and prevents accused individuals from easily obtaining anticipatory bail without fulfilling mandatory conditions. The Telangana High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to M. Gopal Reddy was set aside, underscoring the judiciary’s commitment to strict enforcement of anti-money laundering laws. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court Judgment in Directorate of Enforcement vs M. Gopal Reddy (2023) Sada Law • June 18, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules on Builder’s Liability and Mandatory Bank Deposits in K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga Case (2023) Sada Law • June 18, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on District Judge Appointment: Only 10% Posts Through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Allowed – Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Sada Law • June 18, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court Judgment in Directorate of Enforcement vs M. Gopal Reddy (2023) Read More »

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

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

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

Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information

Trending Today Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case Maternity Benefits Must Extend Beyond Contract Period: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling Secunderabad Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2023): Supreme Court Rules Interest Income on Bank Deposits Taxable Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court Rules B.Ed. Holders Ineligible for Primary Teaching Posts Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court Denies Plea to Quash Criminal Intimidation FIR Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court Mandates Enhanced Court Security and Digitization Dreams Deferred: Odisha’s Young Engineers Caught in Recruitment Crossfire Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information NISHA KUMARI 08 June 2025 In Kishan Jain Chand v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court mandates virtual hearings and digital portals for State Information Commissions to enhance public access to information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Introduction The landmark case Kishan Jain Chand v. Union of India addresses crucial reforms for the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India highlights the challenges faced by citizens, particularly those in rural and remote areas, in accessing State Information Commissions (SICs). The Supreme Court directed modernization of SIC procedures, including virtual hearings and online filing systems, to promote transparency and facilitate easier access to justice. Facts of the Case The petitioner sought judicial intervention to improve the functioning of State Information Commissions (SICs), statutory bodies established under the RTI Act to adjudicate appeals and complaints related to information requests. Currently, most SICs are headquartered in state capitals and conduct hearings only in person, which creates significant hardships for applicants from distant regions due to travel costs and logistical difficulties. Additionally, unlike the Central Information Commission (CIC), many SICs lack online portals for filing RTI complaints or appeals, limiting accessibility. The petitioner urged the Court to mandate digital infrastructure improvements and virtual hearing options to ensure the RTI Act’s objectives of affordable and easy access to information are fulfilled. Notable procedural updates: The Court issued a notice in April 2021, followed by hearings in April and July 2023, leading to the present judgment. Issue of the Case The Supreme Court examined the following issues: Should SICs be required to provide both physical and virtual hearings for RTI complaints and appeals, supported by adequate financial and technical resources from State Governments? Should SICs establish fully functional digital portals allowing: Online filing of RTI complaints and appeals Tracking of case statuses Uploading of daily orders and judgments Publication of cause lists Submission of annual reports under Section 25 of the RTI Act Should SICs adopt strict timelines, ideally resolving complaints within four months? Should there be guidelines on the minimum daily case resolution targets for Information Commissioners? Should SICs ensure imposition and collection of penalties on Public Information Officers violating RTI provisions under Section 20(1)? Judgment The Supreme Court, led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered the judgment on 9 October 2023 with key directives: 1. Virtual Hearings for SICs The Court recognized that in-person hearings at SICs in state capitals pose financial and logistical barriers for many citizens. It held that virtual hearings must be provided as an alternative to ensure fair, effective access to justice under the RTI Act. 2. Online Filing and Digital Portals Acknowledging that electronic submission of RTI applications is permitted by the RTI Act, the Court ordered all SICs to develop user-friendly online portals similar to those operated by the Central Information Commission, facilitating appeals and complaints filing. 3. Judicial Oversight for Implementation The Court directed all High Courts’ Registrars General to draft and implement necessary rules under Sections 2(e)(iii) and 28 of the RTI Act to enable virtual hearings and online filing at district and High Court levels, ensuring timely and uniform compliance. Conclusion The Supreme Court underscored the fundamental importance of accessible information commissions as pillars of the right to information, which is intertwined with constitutional rights such as: Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty The Court mandated that all State Information Commissions must implement hybrid hearing options (both physical and virtual), with virtual links clearly listed in daily cause lists by 31 December 2023. This ruling is a major step toward digital empowerment and ensuring that RTI rights are accessible to all citizens irrespective of geography or economic status. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases Supreme Court Issues 12 Key Directions for Speedy Trial of Civil Cases Sadalaw • June 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Directs Streamlined Implementation of RTI Act for Easier Access to Information Read More »