sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Supreme Court of India

Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today 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 Byju’s in the Dock: Can India’s Ed-Tech Giant Escape the Debt Trap? Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release REHA BHARGAV 08 June 2025 The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar (2023) sets crucial guidelines for remission of life convicts, emphasizing a holistic assessment beyond judicial opinions. Learn how this decision shapes premature release and criminal justice reforms. Introduction The case of Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar addresses the important legal question of premature release or remission of a life imprisonment convict. Convicted in 2001 for the murder of three individuals including two police officers, the petitioner’s applications for early release were rejected primarily based on adverse opinions from trial judges. The Supreme Court of India in its August 2023 judgment emphasized the need for a comprehensive and reformative approach towards remission, focusing on rehabilitation and conduct rather than just the original crime. Facts of the Case Rajo (also known as Rajwa or Rajendra Mandal) was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2001 for the brutal killing of three persons during a village festival in Bihar, including two police officers. Over two decades, he filed multiple applications for remission, supported by positive conduct reports from jail authorities and probation officers. However, these were repeatedly denied by the Remission Board citing unfavorable opinions from the original presiding judges. The petitioner challenged this denial, arguing that the remission process should prioritize reformation and current behavior rather than being solely based on past judicial views. Issue of the Case The central legal issue was: Should the Remission Board reject premature release applications based primarily on adverse judicial opinions from the time of conviction, or should it adopt a holistic evaluation considering the convict’s conduct, rehabilitation prospects, health, age, and other relevant factors? Petitioner’s Arguments The petitioner presented several key points: Completion of Minimum Sentence: Having served over 24 years, Rajo surpassed the statutory minimum 14 years required under Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for life convicts. Positive Behavior in Custody: Reports from the Probation Officer and Jail Superintendent highlighted exemplary conduct and genuine efforts towards rehabilitation. Excessive Reliance on Judicial Opinions: The adverse remarks of the presiding judges, formed over 20 years ago, were outdated and did not reflect current reformative progress. Holistic Assessment Required: The remission process should include all relevant factors such as age, health, family circumstances, and risk of recidivism. Reformatory Aim of Imprisonment: The fundamental purpose of incarceration is reformation, and denying remission purely on judicial opinions contradicts this principle. Respondent’s Arguments The State of Bihar and other respondents countered with: Seriousness of Crime: The gravity of the premeditated murders, especially of police officers, warranted denial of remission. Weight to Judicial Opinions: The trial court and Sessions Court judges had first-hand knowledge and their opinions deserved significant weight. Discretion of Remission Board: The board exercised its powers judiciously after reviewing all materials, including conduct reports. Public Interest & Deterrence: Premature release might undermine public confidence and reduce the deterrent effect of severe sentences. Compliance with Procedures: The remission process was conducted as per statutory guidelines and the petitioner’s applications were duly considered. Judgment On 25 August 2023, the Supreme Court bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the Remission Board to reconsider the application with the following key observations: Holistic and Balanced Approach: Remission decisions should weigh not only the original offense but also present conduct, age, health, and reform prospects. Avoid Mechanical Rejection: Overreliance on adverse judicial opinions formed decades ago undermines the rehabilitative purpose of remission. Reformation as Ultimate Goal: Even life convicts demonstrating genuine behavioral change deserve a chance for premature release. The Court ordered a fresh, reasoned consideration of the petitioner’s remission request, preferably within three months, emphasizing fairness and rehabilitation in criminal justice. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar reinforces a compassionate and reform-oriented approach to remission, particularly for life convicts. While recognizing the seriousness of heinous crimes, the judgment insists that decisions on premature release must consider current behavior, rehabilitation, and social reintegration potential rather than rely solely on outdated judicial opinions. This ruling marks an important step towards balancing punishment with fairness and humanity in India’s criminal justice system. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws 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 ED Cannot Invoke PMLA Without Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur Case ED Cannot Invoke PMLA

Remission Shouldn’t Be Denied Solely on Reports of Presiding Judge or Police: Supreme Court Lays Down Factors for Premature Release Read More »

Justices Anjaria, Bishnoi, and Chandurkar Sworn In as Supreme Court Judges of India

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Justices Anjaria, Bishnoi, and Chandurkar Sworn In as Supreme Court Judges of India Allahabad High Court Rejects Rahul Gandhi’s Plea Challenging Summons Over Indian Army Remarks CBI Arrests NCLT Mumbai Deputy Registrar in ₹3 Lakh Bribery Scandal INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT BJP LEGAL CELL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF MRS. SANGEETA YADAV INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AERHE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION Supreme Court Upholds Punjab and Haryana High Court Orders on Verandah Construction and Green Parking, Citing No UNESCO Violation Supreme Court to Hear Plea Next Week on Jamia Nagar Demolitions in Delhi Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Stay of BJP Minister Vijay Shah in Colonel Sofiya Qureshi Case, Ends MP High Court Proceedings Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks Justices Anjaria, Bishnoi, and Chandurkar Sworn In as Supreme Court Judges of India Prabhat Kumar biltoria 31 May 2025 Justices NV Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi, and Atul S Chandurkar have been sworn in as Supreme Court judges, bringing the bench to full strength of 34 judges. Learn about their careers and the oath ceremony led by CJI BR Gavai. Supreme Court Oath Ceremony Administered by CJI BR Gavai The oath of office was administered by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai. This appointment follows the recent announcement by the Central Government confirming the elevation of the three judges to the Supreme Court. Notably, Justice Vijay Bishnoi took his oath in Hindi, while Justices Anjaria and Chandurkar took theirs in English. With these appointments, the Supreme Court of India now operates at its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges, enhancing its capacity to manage the nation’s growing judicial workload. Collegium Recommendation and Background of the Judges On May 26, 2025, the Supreme Court Collegium, led by CJI BR Gavai, recommended the elevation of these three distinguished judges. At the time: Justice NV Anjaria was serving as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, with Gujarat as his parent High Court. Justice Vijay Bishnoi, originally from Rajasthan High Court, was Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court. Justice Atul S Chandurkar was a judge at the Bombay High Court. Justice NV Anjaria’s Legal Career and Judicial Journey Justice Anjaria began his legal career in August 1988 at the Gujarat High Court under Senior Advocate SN Shelat. He specialized in constitutional, civil, labor, and service law, serving as standing counsel for several state entities. His judicial appointments include: Additional Judge, Gujarat High Court – November 21, 2011 Permanent Judge, Gujarat High Court – September 6, 2013 Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court – February 25, 2024 Justice Vijay Bishnoi’s Experience and Contributions Registered as an advocate on July 8, 1989, Justice Bishnoi practiced at the Rajasthan High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal in Jodhpur. He handled civil, criminal, constitutional, service, and election cases and served as Additional Central Government Standing Counsel (2000-2004). His judicial milestones include: Additional Judge, Rajasthan High Court – January 8, 2013 Permanent Judge, Rajasthan High Court – January 7, 2015 Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court – February 5, 2024 Justice Atul S Chandurkar’s Career Highlights Justice Chandurkar began his legal practice in Mumbai in 1988, working with Senior Advocate BN Naik, later moving to Nagpur in 1992 to broaden his legal practice. He was appointed: Additional Judge, Bombay High Court – June 21, 2013 Importance of the New Supreme Court Judges’ Appointment The induction of Justices NV Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi, and Atul S Chandurkar reinforces the Supreme Court’s strength, enabling it to better serve justice efficiently across India. Their vast experience from various High Courts brings valuable perspectives to the nation’s highest judicial forum. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach Sadalaw • May 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Justices Anjaria, Bishnoi, and Chandurkar Sworn In as Supreme Court Judges of India Read More »

Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad Amid Operation Sindoor Post Controversy; SIT Formed for Investigation Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Mandates Three Years of Legal Practice for Judicial Service Eligibility Kerala High Court Questions Withholding of 10th Grade Results in Shahabas Murder Case Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Sanitation Worker, Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Testimony Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects PIL Seeking ‘Martyr’ Status for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Rajasthan High Court Flags Lack of Law for Coaching Centers Amid Surge in Student Suicides in Kota Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Litigant Over Contemptuous Remarks Against Judges in Maya Devi Will Case Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) NITU KUMARI 21 May 2025 Explore the 2024 Supreme Court of India judgment in Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala, analyzing the extent of the bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act. Learn how this landmark case balances legal safeguards with individual rights. Introduction The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to protect marginalized communities from caste-based discrimination and atrocities. However, the rigid interpretation of Section 18—barring anticipatory bail—has sparked significant legal debate. In Shajan Skaria vs The State of Kerala (2024), the Supreme Court clarified the extent of this bar, reshaping how anticipatory bail is viewed in SC/ST offences. Case Background: Key Facts In May 2023, Shajan Skaria, the appellant, published a video on YouTube accusing P.V. Srinijan, a Scheduled Caste MLA from Kerala, of corruption. A complaint was filed alleging that the video was defamatory and caste-insensitive. Filing of the FIR An FIR was registered on June 9, 2023, under: Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act Section 3(1)(r) – Intentional insult with intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST in public view Section 3(1)(u) – Promoting enmity against SC/ST communities under the SC/ST Act Following his arrest, the appellant’s anticipatory bail plea was rejected by both the Special Judge and the Kerala High Court due to the interpretation of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Legal Issue Before the Court Does Section 18 of the SC/ST Act impose an absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail in offences registered under the Act? Supreme Court Judgment: A Landmark Clarification On August 23, 2024, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and granted anticipatory bail to Shajan Skaria, ruling that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not create a blanket prohibition. Key Takeaways from the Judgment Ratio Decidendi The Court held that anticipatory bail is not absolutely barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Judges must assess whether the complaint prima facie discloses caste-based intent to humiliate. Obiter Dicta The Court highlighted the misuse of SC/ST Act provisions in non-caste-related disputes. It emphasized the importance of context, especially when the accused are public figures or journalists. Guidelines for Lower Courts Conduct a preliminary inquiry to check for prima facie evidence of caste-based discrimination. Consider freedom of expression, especially in politically sensitive or public interest cases. Conclusion This judgment establishes a balanced legal precedent, protecting both: The liberty and rights of the accused, especially in politically or socially sensitive cases. The integrity and intent of the SC/ST Act, ensuring its use remains targeted at actual caste-based offenses. By requiring prima facie evidence of caste-based intent, the Court has curbed potential misuse while maintaining legal safeguards for vulnerable communities. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Can anticipatory bail be granted under the SC/ST Act? Yes. The Supreme Court of India has ruled that anticipatory bail can be granted if the allegations do not establish prima facie caste-based intent. What is the role of Section 18 in the SC/ST Act? Section 18 restricts anticipatory bail for offences under the Act, but it does not impose an absolute ban—courts must evaluate the presence of caste-based motivation. Why is this case significant? It provides a clarifying precedent for handling politically sensitive cases under the SC/ST Act and strengthens the framework for fair trials and free speech. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Sada Law • May 21, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Supreme Court on Modification of Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 and 37: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Explained Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Supreme Court Rules Only Vaishnav Sampradaya Members Can Be Receivers of Mathura Temples Sada Law • May 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Cases: Shajan Skaria vs State of Kerala (2024) Read More »

Supreme Court Legal Aid Campaign Empowers 3,800 Inmates in Landmark Justice Initiative

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Legal Aid Campaign Empowers 3,800 Inmates in Landmark Justice Initiative Madhya Pradesh High Court Slams Police Over Flawed FIR in Minister Vijay Shah–Col. Sofiya Qureshi Hate Speech Case IAEA Confirms No Radiation Leak at Pakistan’s Kirana Hills Amid India-Pakistan Tensions Precedential Value of Judgments: Does Bench Size or Majority Matter? A Case Study of Trimurthi Fragrances vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi Dhaka University Student Leader Fatally Stabbed After Concert Near Campus Entrance False Claims of RSS Attack on Col. Sofiya Qureshi Go Viral, Police Confirm as Fake News Delhi High Court: Wife Who Quit Job to Care for Child Entitled to Maintenance Justice B.R. Gavai Sworn In as India’s 52nd Chief Justice, First Buddhist CJI in History Supreme Court Verdict on EWS Quota: Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022) – Constitutional Validity of 103rd Amendment Scope of Court’s Power Under Section 319 CrPC to Summon New Accused After Trial: Supreme Court Judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira Case Supreme Court Legal Aid Campaign Empowers 3,800 Inmates in Landmark Justice Initiative MAHI SINHA 16 May 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, under the leadership of Justice Surya Kant, is transforming access to justice through a nationwide legal aid campaign that has already empowered over 3,800 underrepresented prisoners across India. Historic Legal Aid Campaign Empowers Inmates Across India In a groundbreaking initiative, the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC), under the visionary leadership of Justice Surya Kant, has launched a nationwide campaign aimed at providing free legal aid to prisoners who have been denied justice due to lack of representation. This first-of-its-kind campaign began on January 10, 2025, in collaboration with all State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) and prison departments. The goal is to ensure access to justice for underrepresented prisoners eligible to appeal before the Supreme Court of India. Targeted Legal Support for Vulnerable Prisoners The campaign identifies and supports three key categories of inmates: Convicts whose appeals were not filed after their conviction was upheld. Prisoners who were denied bail despite completing at least half of their sentence. Individuals whose remission or early release was rejected and not appealed. These groups were prioritized by the SCLSC due to their legal vulnerability, making them most in need of judicial assistance. Massive Outreach and Positive Response In early assessments, SCLSC, in collaboration with SLSAs, High Court Legal Services Committees (HCLSCs), and prison authorities, identified 4,216 such inmates. During a virtual meeting held on April 1, 2025, Justice Surya Kant directed officials to create special committees to conduct prison visits, encouraging inmates to apply for legal aid. By May 5, 2025, nearly 3,800 prisoners had already sought assistance under this initiative—a powerful testament to its impact. Accelerating Legal Processes for Swift Justice In a follow-up review on May 5, 2025, Justice Surya Kant emphasized the need to expedite pending case submissions. He instructed that all paper books be delivered via Special Messengers—even during holidays—to avoid delays. To enhance coordination, district-level Nodal Officers were appointed by HCLSCs to address case defects, handle clarification requests, and ensure timely follow-ups with SCLSC. Judiciary’s Commitment to Equitable Legal Access Despite some prisoners opting out—due to reasons like imminent release, private counsel engagement, or expected remission on Independence Day or Republic Day—the overwhelming participation highlights the judiciary’s dedication to accessible justice. Under Justice Surya Kant’s leadership, this campaign has significantly transformed the legal aid landscape for incarcerated individuals in India. Progress Report: Legal Aid Implementation As of May 13, 2025, the SCLSC has received: 1,000 paper books from various States and Union Territories. Panel advocates appointed in nearly 600 cases. 285 cases formally submitted for consideration by 12 PM. This initiative reflects a major stride in the Indian legal system’s effort to uphold justice behind bars and ensure fair legal representation for all. Conclusion: A Landmark Step Toward Justice for All The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee’s bold and inclusive campaign stands as a milestone in India’s legal reform efforts. By focusing on the most neglected segments of the prison population, it demonstrates a proactive approach to legal equity and reinforces the constitutional right to legal aid. Under the exemplary guidance of Justice Surya Kant, this initiative has not only brought renewed hope to thousands of inmates but also strengthened public trust in the Indian judiciary. With ongoing support from SCLSC, SLSAs, and HCLSCs, the campaign is paving the way for a more just, inclusive, and responsive legal system—one where no one is denied justice due to lack of representation. This initiative is more than a campaign—it is a movement for systemic change in how legal aid is perceived, accessed, and delivered across the nation. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Legal Aid Campaign Empowers 3,800 Inmates in Landmark Justice Initiative Supreme Court Legal Aid Campaign Empowers 3,800 Inmates in Landmark Justice Initiative Sada Law • May 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Madhya Pradesh High Court Slams Police Over Flawed FIR in Minister Vijay Shah–Col. Sofiya Qureshi Hate Speech Case Madhya Pradesh High Court Slams Police Over Flawed FIR in Minister Vijay Shah–Col. Sofiya Qureshi Hate Speech Case Sada Law • May 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments IAEA Confirms No Radiation Leak at Pakistan’s Kirana Hills Amid India-Pakistan Tensions IAEA Confirms No Radiation Leak at Pakistan’s Kirana Hills Amid India-Pakistan Tensions Sada Law • May 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Legal Aid Campaign Empowers 3,800 Inmates in Landmark Justice Initiative Read More »

Justice B.R. Gavai Sworn In as India’s 52nd Chief Justice, First Buddhist CJI in History

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Justice B.R. Gavai Sworn In as India’s 52nd Chief Justice, First Buddhist CJI in History Supreme Court Verdict on EWS Quota: Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022) – Constitutional Validity of 103rd Amendment Scope of Court’s Power Under Section 319 CrPC to Summon New Accused After Trial: Supreme Court Judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira Case Sonu Nigam Seeks Dismissal of FIR Over Alleged Remarks Against Kannadigas at Bengaluru Concert Supreme Court Revokes Ban on ‘4PM News’ YouTube Channel, Questions IT Blocking Rules Allahabad High Court Stays Suspension of UP DSP Accused of Extramarital Affair Three Lashkar Militants Killed in Shopian Encounter Amid Rising India-Pakistan Tensions Pakistan Admits Aircraft Damage After Precision Indian Strikes in Operation Sindoor Rahul Gandhi Faces Court Complaint Over “Mythological” Remark About Lord Rama in US Delhi Airport Disruptions: 97 Flights Cancelled, 150 Delayed Amid Regional Tensions Justice B.R. Gavai Sworn In as India’s 52nd Chief Justice, First Buddhist CJI in History MAHI SINHA 14 May 2025 Justice B.R. Gavai becomes the 52nd Chief Justice of India, marking a historic milestone as the first Buddhist and second Dalit CJI. Discover his legal journey and impact on SC representation. Justice B.R. Gavai Sworn In as the 52nd Chief Justice of India In a historic ceremony held at the Rashtrapati Bhavan on May 14, 2025, Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was officially sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI). The oath was administered by President Droupadi Murmu. Historic Firsts: Buddhist and Dalit Representation Justice Gavai’s appointment marks a significant moment in Indian judicial history. He is the first member of the Buddhist community and only the second Dalit to hold the office of CJI, following Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. He succeeds Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who retired on May 13, 2025. Justice Gavai will serve as Chief Justice until his retirement on November 23, 2025. Early Life and Background Born on November 24, 1960, in Amravati, Maharashtra, Justice Gavai hails from a family rooted in Ambedkarite values. His father, R.S. Gavai, was a prominent leader of the Republican Party of India and served as governor of Bihar, Sikkim, and Kerala. Legal Career and Judicial Service Justice Gavai began his legal career under the mentorship of Bar. Raja S. Bhonsale, a former High Court judge. Between 1987 and 1990, he practiced independently at the Bombay High Court, later focusing on its Nagpur Bench from 1990 onward. He practiced constitutional and administrative law, representing public entities like SICOM and several municipal corporations. Justice Gavai also served as: Standing Counsel for Amravati University and local municipal bodies Additional Public Prosecutor and Assistant Government Pleader (1992–1993) Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor at Nagpur Bench (2000) He was appointed an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on November 14, 2003. Rising Representation in the Supreme Court Justice Gavai’s elevation reflects a rising trend in the Supreme Court of India‘s inclusivity. Alongside Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, he is one of three active Justices from the Scheduled Caste (SC) community—an unprecedented level of representation in the Court’s history. Notably, both Justice Gavai and Justice Varale are Buddhists, making this the first time two Buddhist justices serve concurrently on the Supreme Court bench. Conclusion: A Landmark Moment in Indian Judicial History The appointment of Justice B.R. Gavai as the 52nd Chief Justice of India is not just a personal milestone—it is a historic moment for India’s judiciary. His journey from Amravati to the nation’s highest judicial office underscores the progress toward greater representation and inclusivity in the legal system. As the first Buddhist and second Dalit to assume this esteemed role, Justice Gavai’s tenure symbolizes hope, diversity, and justice for all communities. His legacy will likely inspire generations of legal minds committed to equality and constitutional integrity. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Justice B.R. Gavai Sworn In as India’s 52nd Chief Justice, First Buddhist CJI in History Justice B.R. Gavai Sworn In as India’s 52nd Chief Justice, First Buddhist CJI in History Sada Law • May 14, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Sonu Nigam Seeks Dismissal of FIR Over Alleged Remarks Against Kannadigas at Bengaluru Concert Sonu Nigam Seeks Dismissal of FIR Over Alleged Remarks Against Kannadigas at Bengaluru Concert Sada Law • May 14, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Revokes Ban on ‘4PM News’ YouTube Channel, Questions IT Blocking Rules Supreme Court Revokes Ban on ‘4PM News’ YouTube Channel, Questions IT Blocking Rules Sada Law • May 14, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Justice B.R. Gavai Sworn In as India’s 52nd Chief Justice, First Buddhist CJI in History Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act Supreme Court Dismisses Noida Toll Company’s Appeal Against DND Flyway Toll Judgment: Highlights Public Interest Justice Surya Kant Appointed as NALSA’s Executive Chairman Effective May 14, 2025 Supreme Court Weighs Shift from Five-Year to Four-Year Law Degree Citing NEP 2020 India-Pakistan Agree to Full and Immediate Ceasefire After U.S. Mediation, Confirms Donald Trump Suspected Drone Debris Found in Jaisalmer After Pakistan’s Border Attacks Indian Army Jawan Murali Naik Killed by Pakistan Firing Near LoC in Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Affirms Right to Die with Dignity in India: Eases Rules on Living Wills and Euthanasia Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act NITU KUMARI 11 May 2025 In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reinforced the rights of senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The case of Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit highlights how elderly parents can legally reclaim property transferred via a gift deed if the recipient fails to provide maintenance and care. Background of the Case: Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit Key Facts On January 23, 1968, Urmila Dixit purchased a property. On September 7, 2019, she transferred ownership of the property to her son via a gift deed. A promissory note signed by the son confirmed he would care for his parents. Upon alleged neglect and abuse, the mother invoked Section 23 of the Act. Legal Issue and Appeal Process Main Legal Questions Can a senior citizen reclaim gifted property under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007? Do authorities have the power to evict the occupant and restore possession to the senior citizen? Course of Proceedings The Sub-Divisional Magistrate voided the deed. The Collector upheld the decision. A writ petition was filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Single Judge dismissed it. The Division Bench reversed it. The mother then appealed to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Judgment: Upholding Senior Citizens’ Rights Final Decision On January 2, 2025, a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Chudalayil T. Ravikumar ruled: The gift deed was revoked due to neglect. Under Section 23, authorities can: Declare such transfers void. Evict the transferee. Return possession to the senior citizen. Legal Reasoning and Precedents Purpose-Oriented Interpretation The Court used a beneficial interpretation, citing K. H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob (2019), aligning with the spirit of the Act. Key Requirements Under Section 23 The decision referenced Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2022), stating: The transfer must include a maintenance clause. The transferee failed to honor that responsibility. Conclusion: A Victory for Elderly Rights in India This ruling reaffirms that elderly parents can reclaim gifted property when neglected. It also empowers local authorities under the Act to protect senior citizens through eviction orders and property restoration. Frequently Asked Questions ❓ Can a gift deed be revoked by a senior citizen in India? Yes, under Section 23, if the recipient fails to maintain the parent, the deed can be cancelled. ❓ What powers do authorities have under Section 23? They can revoke property transfers, order eviction, and restore possession to the concerned senior citizen. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act Sada Law • May 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Supreme Court Strikes Down 2020 Environmental Clearance Exemption for Roads and Pipelines Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Constitutional Challenge to Demonetisation: Supreme Court Judgment on RBI Act and Legal Validity of 2016 Currency Ban Sada Law • May 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds Senior Citizens’ Right to Reclaim Property Under Section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare Act Read More »

Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Nationality Under the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Md. Rahim Ali vs. State of Assam (2024) Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment: States’ Power to Sub-Classify Scheduled Castes for Reservations Pakistan’s War Readiness in Crisis: Artillery Shortage Limits Combat Capability to Four Days Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment AIMPLB Challenges WAQF Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court Affidavit Highlights Risks of De-registration Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment NITU KUMARI 06 May 2025 Learn the critical steps outlined by the Supreme Court of India to protect the endangered Great Indian Bustard, highlighting innovative conservation measures and legal milestones. Introduction The Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a critically endangered bird, predominantly inhabits the arid and grassland regions of Rajasthan and Gujarat. With its population plummeting due to habitat destruction and collisions with overhead power lines, immediate conservation measures are necessary. This article delves into the pivotal Supreme Court case, M.K. Ranjitsinh vs Union of India, which highlights actionable steps to protect the species. Fact of the Case The Great Indian Bustard’s dwindling numbers have raised significant concerns, leading to its classification as “critically endangered” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. One major threat identified is fatal collisions with overhead electrical transmission wires. In 2019, a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution sought the Supreme Court’s intervention. The Court issued an interim order on April 19, 2021, prohibiting overhead power lines in a 99,000 square kilometer region, mandating their underground installation, and requiring the immediate use of bird diverters. However, concerns about the implications for solar power generation and India’s commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement prompted the Ministries of Environment, Forests, Climate Change, Power, and New and Renewable Energy to request a revision of the Court’s order. Issues of the Case What immediate and long-term actions are necessary to protect the Great Indian Bustard? Should the Supreme Court’s restriction on overhead power lines in critical habitats be reexamined? Does the establishment of an expert committee for ongoing monitoring and data collection ensure better conservation outcomes? Judgment On March 21, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment. The bench, presided over by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Jamshed B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, emphasized the necessity of balancing biodiversity conservation with the nation’s renewable energy goals. While reversing the blanket ban on overhead transmission lines, the Court directed: Establishment of an expert committee: Tasked with assessing the feasibility of underground lines and evaluating bird diverters’ effectiveness. Timeline for findings: The committee must submit its report by July 31, 2024. This balanced approach underscores the need for innovative solutions to protect the GIB without compromising renewable energy commitments. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in the M.K. Ranjitsinh vs Union of India case reaffirms that the right to live free from the adverse effects of climate change is enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. By mandating a scientific and collaborative approach, the judgment serves as a pivotal step towards conserving not only the Great Indian Bustard but also India’s broader ecological heritage. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment Sada Law • May 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Nationality Under the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Md. Rahim Ali vs. State of Assam (2024) Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Nationality Under the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Md. Rahim Ali vs. State of Assam (2024) Sada Law • May 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment: States’ Power to Sub-Classify Scheduled Castes for Reservations Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment: States’ Power to Sub-Classify Scheduled Castes for Reservations Sada Law • May 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Steps to Protect the Great Indian Bustard: Insights from the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts NITU KUMARI 04 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India, in the 2024 Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala case, reinforced LGBTQ+ rights, personal liberty, and the legitimacy of chosen families. Learn about the key guidelines issued to High Courts in habeas corpus and protection petitions. Supreme Court Reinforces LGBTQ+ Autonomy and Personal Liberty in Habeas Corpus Case On March 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment in the case of Devu G. Nair vs. The State of Kerala, affirming the autonomy and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals. The Court issued a set of critical guidelines to High Courts regarding the handling of habeas corpus petitions and protection petitions, especially those involving sexual orientation and identity. Case Background – Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala In this case, the petitioner alleged that her close companion, referred to as “X”, was being unlawfully confined by her natal family due to their intimate relationship. The Kerala High Court initially directed “X” to undergo counseling, raising concerns about interference with personal liberty. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, examined whether the High Court’s order violated the individual’s right to choose their relationships and living arrangements freely. Key Legal Issues Addressed  Violation of Autonomy through Forced CounselingThe Court analyzed whether court-ordered counseling infringed on the autonomy and dignity of “X”, particularly when it could be used to suppress her sexual orientation. Protection of LGBTQ+ Individuals in Legal ProceedingsThe Court also considered what safeguards courts should implement when hearing habeas corpus petitions involving LGBTQ+ persons. Arguments Presented Petitioner’s ViewpointThe petitioner emphasized that members of the LGBTQ+ community often face violence, emotional abuse, and rejection by their biological families. The concept of a “chosen family”—comprised of friends and intimate partners—holds vital importance in their lives. Any directive for therapy or family counseling may reinforce harmful societal biases. Respondent’s Standpoint“X” claimed she was staying with her parents of her own free will and referred to the petitioner as an “intimate friend.” She also stated she did not wish to live with or marry anyone at that time. However, concerns were raised about the potential misuse of counseling to manipulate her sexual identity and choices. Supreme Court Verdict and Key Takeaways Ratio Decidendi (Binding Legal Principle) Right to Choose RelationshipsAdults have the constitutional right to determine their own relationships and living situations without undue interference. Judicial Limits in LGBTQ+ CasesCounseling must not be weaponized to alter someone’s sexual identity or relationship preferences. Recognition of Chosen FamiliesThe Court recognized chosen families as equal in importance to biological families, especially for marginalized communities. Obiter Dicta (Judicial Commentary) The judiciary must remain impartial and avoid reinforcing societal prejudices. Courts should ensure that they do not become tools of coercion, particularly in matters involving identity and individual liberty. Guidelines Issued to High Courts The Supreme Court laid down the following judicial guidelines for handling similar cases: Prioritize Personal Liberty: Habeas corpus petitions must be resolved swiftly, focusing on the freedom of the individual. Ensure Private Interaction: Judges should ensure that individuals can meet and speak freely with legal representatives or partners in a safe, non-coercive environment. Avoid Forced Counseling or Parental Custody: Courts must not suggest therapy or parental care that could stigmatize or pressure LGBTQ+ individuals. Show Empathy and Protect Privacy: The judiciary should treat such matters with compassion and preserve the individual’s dignity. Provide Immediate Protection: Where necessary, courts should arrange police protection to safeguard individuals from threats posed by natal families. Conclusion – A Milestone for LGBTQ+ Rights in India This landmark judgment marks a significant step forward in the protection of LGBTQ+ rights, privacy, and individual liberty under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. By acknowledging the reality of chosen families and setting firm boundaries against judicial overreach, the Supreme Court has provided a strong foundation for protecting personal freedoms in future cases. The case of Devu G. Nair vs. State of Kerala serves as a reminder that constitutional values must prevail over societal pressure, especially when it comes to the lives and identities of underrepresented groups.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5

Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Read More »

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

Leave a Comment / 2020, Case law /

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

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

Supreme Court Judges Publicly Declare Assets: A Historic Move Toward Judicial Transparency in India

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Judges Publicly Declare Assets: A Historic Move Toward Judicial Transparency in India Supreme Court Halts Nashik Dargah Demolition, Questions Bombay High Court Over Plea Listing Delay Wildlife Conservation Laws in India: Legal Framework, Importance & Key Acts “Drone Usage in India: Laws, Regulations, and the Future of UAV Technology” RCB vs Uber Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Case Over Viral Travis Head YouTube Ad Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts Supreme Court Upholds Validity of IPC Section 498A, Rejects Misuse Claims Under Article 14 Supreme Court Judges Publicly Declare Assets: A Historic Move Toward Judicial Transparency in India MAHI SINHA 20 Apr 2025 Introduction: A Landmark Moment for Indian Judiciary In a time when public trust in institutions is under scrutiny, the Supreme Court of India has taken a historic step to strengthen judicial transparency and accountability. On April 1, 2025, during a full-court meeting, all Supreme Court judges unanimously agreed to declare their personal assets publicly—a move that is already earning widespread praise. Why This Decision Is a Big Deal   Breaking the Norms of Secrecy While civil servants and politicians in India are routinely required to disclose their assets, the higher judiciary has traditionally remained exempt. The Supreme Court’s decision to change that narrative breaks long-standing norms and signals a new era of openness. A Message of Integrity and Accountability By voluntarily sharing their assets, Supreme Court judges are making a strong statement of integrity. They are showing the nation that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done—by those who deliver it. What This Means for the Public   Rebuilding Public Trust in the Judiciary In a country where concerns over corruption and misuse of power often dominate headlines, this decision serves as a powerful tool to rebuild public confidence. Citizens now have an opportunity to see that the judiciary is willing to hold itself to the same standards of honesty, fairness, and transparency that it expects from others. Aligning With Global Standards Globally, judicial transparency is a key element of a trustworthy legal system. By taking this initiative, India’s Supreme Court joins a growing number of judiciaries around the world that are working to become more transparent and accountable to the people they serve. Final Thoughts: A Statement, Not Just a Step This is not merely a procedural change—it’s a symbolic and transformative statement. The Supreme Court judges’ decision to disclose their assets could mark the beginning of a wider cultural shift in Indian governance, where transparency becomes the norm, not the exception. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Judges Publicly Declare Assets: A Historic Move Toward Judicial Transparency in India Supreme Court Judges Publicly Declare Assets: A Historic Move Toward Judicial Transparency in India Sadalaw Publications • April 20, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Halts Nashik Dargah Demolition, Questions Bombay High Court Over Plea Listing Delay Supreme Court Halts Nashik Dargah Demolition, Questions Bombay High Court Over Plea Listing Delay Sadalaw Publications • April 19, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments RCB vs Uber Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Case Over Viral Travis Head YouTube Ad RCB vs Uber Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Case Over Viral Travis Head YouTube Ad Sadalaw Publications • April 18, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Judges Publicly Declare Assets: A Historic Move Toward Judicial Transparency in India Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote