sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Halts Nashik Dargah Demolition, Questions Bombay High Court Over Plea Listing Delay

Leave a Comment / 2025, Live cases /

Trending Today 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 Deems Tamil Nadu Bills Approved Without Governor’s Assent in Historic Ruling Supreme Court Halts Nashik Dargah Demolition, Questions Bombay High Court Over Plea Listing Delay MAHI SINHA 19 Apr 2025 Introduction In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has intervened in the controversial demolition of the Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah in Nashik, Maharashtra. The court questioned the Bombay High Court regarding allegations that a plea filed to prevent the demolition was not given urgent consideration, raising serious concerns about judicial response and due process. Background of the Case Case Title: Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah v. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Another On April 1, 2025, the Nashik Municipal Corporation issued a demolition notice to the historic dargah. In response, the dargah administration promptly filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court on April 7. However, their urgent request for case listing was allegedly denied on April 9, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court. Supreme Court’s Response and Interim Relief On April 16, the matter was heard by Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The bench expressed surprise at the apparent delay in listing the plea, especially considering the religious and cultural importance of the structure in question. “We can’t comprehend what happened between April 9 and now,” the bench noted, emphasizing the urgency due to the impending demolition of a holy site. Citing the seriousness of the claim—that the High Court failed to list the matter despite repeated requests—the Supreme Court issued an interim stay order, temporarily halting the demolition. Supreme Court Seeks Accountability The bench highlighted the gravity of the petitioner’s claims and insisted that the senior counsel take responsibility for the statements made: “This is a significant statement. The learned counsel will accept responsibility for the fallout.” The Registrar General of the Bombay High Court has now been directed to submit a detailed report on the status of the plea’s listing. The matter will be heard again on April 21, 2025. Demolition Already Executed? Adding to the controversy, several media reports claim that the dargah was demolished just hours before the Supreme Court issued its stay order. If confirmed, this may lead to further judicial scrutiny and potential consequences for the municipal authorities. The petitioner is being represented by Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa and Advocate-on-Record Jasmeet Singh (currently no Wikipedia pages available). Conclusion The Supreme Court’s proactive stance in questioning procedural lapses and issuing an interim stay underlines the importance of judicial transparency, religious freedom, and due process. With a final hearing scheduled, all eyes will be on the upcoming developments in this sensitive legal battle. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases 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 Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking Sadalaw Publications • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi Sadalaw Publications • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Halts Nashik Dargah Demolition, Questions Bombay High Court Over Plea Listing Delay Read More »

Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today 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 Deems Tamil Nadu Bills Approved Without Governor’s Assent in Historic Ruling Kerala High Court Declares GST on Club Services to Members Unconstitutional: Major Relief for Associations Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India: Supriyo vs Union of India Case Explained A Creative’s Guide to Intellectual Property: Protecting and Profiting from Your Work Murshidabad Waqf Bill Protest: Families Mourn Loved Ones Amid Violent Clashes and Police Inaction Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained MAHI SINHA 18 Apr 2025 Supreme Court of India Pushes for Clarity in Royalty Calculation: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explore the key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, addressing royalty calculation anomalies under MCR 2016 and MCDR 2017. Learn how this case may reshape mineral royalty norms in India. Introduction: A Landmark Case in Mining Royalty Disputes In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed long-standing concerns about the calculation of mining royalties under two central laws—MCR, 2016 and MCDR, 2017. The case, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 715 of 2024), raised critical questions about the “royalty on royalty” effect and its impact on the average sale price of minerals. Background: The Legal Challenge The petitioner, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., challenged the legality and fairness of the methodology used for estimating royalties. The challenge centered on: Rule 38 (Explanation) of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 The main contention was the cascading effect of applying royalty on previously taxed royalties, which distorted the calculation of ASP and increased the financial burden on mining companies. Supreme Court’s Observations: Royalty Calculation Is a Policy Matter The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan (not available on Wikipedia), acknowledged the existence of an anomaly in the current royalty framework. However, the Court reiterated that: Policy formulation—especially in technical and economic matters like royalty—is the sole domain of the executive branch. Courts will not interfere with such decisions unless they are arbitrary, unconstitutional, or made in bad faith. Key Directives and Timelines Despite dismissing the petition, the Court issued clear directives to the Union Government: Initial Order: The Union was given two months to review the royalty calculation process and address the cascading effect. Extension Granted: Following a request for more time, the Court granted an additional two-month extension, considering the ongoing public consultation process. Rejection and Resistance: The proposed amendments were reportedly rejected by the Ministry of Finance (India) and mineral-rich states of India, further delaying progress. Final Warning: In light of continued delays, the Court recently issued a final warning, directing the Cabinet Secretariat of India to draft a new proposal within four weeks and submit it to the Union Cabinet. The Court emphasized that appropriate action would follow if the Secretariat failed to comply. Why This Case Matters This ruling is a critical development in India’s mining sector, as it: Recognizes the financial impact of flawed royalty mechanisms Pushes for transparent and fair mineral pricing Upholds the principle of executive accountability in policy enforcement The outcome of this directive could have far-reaching consequences for mining companies in India, affecting both regulatory frameworks and investor confidence. Conclusion: A Call for Policy Reform in Mining Royalties While the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the executive’s authority over royalty rules, it has also underscored the need for responsible policy action. The ball is now in the Union Government’s court to address systemic issues in royalty computation and ensure a balanced, industry-friendly framework going forward. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sanoj kumar paul. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking Supreme Court Orders Immediate License Suspension for Hospitals Involved in Baby Trafficking sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi National Herald Case: ED Files ₹2,000 Crore Money Laundering Complaint Against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Directs Policy Reform in Mining Royalty: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Explained Read More »

Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today 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 Deems Tamil Nadu Bills Approved Without Governor’s Assent in Historic Ruling Kerala High Court Declares GST on Club Services to Members Unconstitutional: Major Relief for Associations Supreme Court Verdict on Same-Sex Marriage in India: Supriyo vs Union of India Case Explained A Creative’s Guide to Intellectual Property: Protecting and Profiting from Your Work Murshidabad Waqf Bill Protest: Families Mourn Loved Ones Amid Violent Clashes and Police Inaction Bombay High Court Acquits Father in Minor Daughter’s Rape Case: Legal Loopholes vs Child Protection Lily Thomas vs Union of India: Landmark Supreme Court Verdict That Transformed Indian Election Law Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Tamil Nadu Laws Enacted Without Governor’s Assent for the First Time in India Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts MAHI SINHA 17 Apr 2025 In order to continue hearing arguments at 2:00 p.m. on April 17, the Supreme Court asked the Center if Muslims would be permitted to participate in Hindu religious trusts. On Wednesday, April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court intended to order that assets designated as waqf, including “waqf by user,” not be de-notified. The Center objected to the proposal and requested a hearing before such a direction was issued. The Supreme Court also questioned the Center about the possibility of Muslim participation in Hindu religious trusts. When the top court took up the case, it also voiced concern over the violence that ensued after the law was passed and described it as unsettling. At 2 p.m. on April 17, the highest court will resume hearing arguments about appeals against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. On April 3, 2025, 288 members of the Lok Sabha and 232 members of the Rajya Sabha voted in favor of the Bill, whereas on April 4, 2025, 128 members voted against it. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 17, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds Validity of IPC Section 498A, Rejects Misuse Claims Under Article 14 Supreme Court Upholds Validity of IPC Section 498A, Rejects Misuse Claims Under Article 14 sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Deems Tamil Nadu Bills Approved Without Governor’s Assent in Historic Ruling Supreme Court Deems Tamil Nadu Bills Approved Without Governor’s Assent in Historic Ruling sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 16, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Reviews Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Questions Muslim Role in Hindu Trusts Read More »

Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes Supreme Court Strikes Down Tamil Nadu Rule Requiring Title Proof for Property Registration Delhi High Court Fines Shazia Ilmi ₹25,000 in Privacy Violation Case Against Rajdeep Sardesai India and Nepal Sign MoU to Strengthen Judicial Cooperation and Legal Exchange Calcutta High Court Allows Anjani Putra Sena’s Ram Navami Rally in Howrah with Strict Conditions Waqf Amendment Bill Sparks Uproar: Opposition Moves Supreme Court Over Alleged Bias Against Muslims “NALSA Files PIL for Humanitarian Release of Aged and Sick Inmates from Indian Jails” Which law states that Aadhaar is required to operate bank accounts? Questions for the Supreme Court the Delhi government’s refusal to grant workers’ allowances Opening the Monument Examining the Long-Term Effects of the 1981 Case Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi on Individual Liberty and Indian Jurisprudence Rajya Sabha Adopts Bill 2025 for Waqf (Amendment) Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes MAHI SINHA 08 Apr 2025 The goal of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [the “ID Act”) and its several amendments has always been to guarantee workers social justice and to make sure they are not left defenseless against businesses and industries. Section 17B of the ID Act is one such clause. It was included by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, and it became operative on August 21, 1984. Because the employer has challenged the order in the High Court or Supreme Court, workers who have successfully obtained an award from the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal, or National Tribunal that sets aside an order of termination of their service and directs their reinstatement are not permitted to return to work. This is why Section 17B was enacted. An employer is then responsible for paying the employee’s last salary while the suit is pending. In Dena Bank vs. Kirtikumar T. Patel, the Supreme Court of India explained the purpose of Section 17B, holding that it is to alleviate to some degree the hardship that is caused to the worker due to the delay during the execution of the present during the duration of actions in which the reinstatement award is under objection before the High Court or the Supreme Court. However, some workers are abusing this social welfare legislation as they unfairly enrich themselves while harming the interests of the industries and how the industries have been forced to pay wages even though the workers have found gainful employment elsewhere. The worker must file an affidavit certifying that he is not financially engaged elsewhere in order to be entitled for earnings under Section 17B. The proviso to Section 17B, however, states that the Court will order that no wages be paid if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, that the worker had a job and had been paid enough during the challenge/appeal period, or a portion of it. This clause therefore primarily aims to protect workers who are not engaged in productive employment and who would face financial difficulties in the absence of Section 17B wages. This isn’t always the case, though. The ID Act’s lack of a corollary clause that forbids workers from providing false affidavits of non-employment and no penalties for workers who commit perjury has resulted in the misuse of Section 17B. In order to obtain back pay, some workers who obtained gainful jobs during the trial or after an appeal produce fake affidavits. The ID Act does not provide industries with a haven to protect themselves from such bold human behavior. The only remaining option for the harmed industry would be to file a perjury lawsuit against the dishonest employee. Even if perjury is proven, there will be no financial compensation, therefore this is also of little concern. Furthermore, there have been other instances where the burden of demonstrating whether a worker is gainfully employed has passed from the company to the worker. The Supreme Court recently upheld one of its earlier decisions in the case of National Gandhi Museum vs. Sudhir Sharma, decided on 24.09.2021, which stated that the employee bears the burden of proving that he was not financially secure during the period of challenge or appeal because he is aware of it. The court further held that the facts of each case determine whether or not this burden is discharged. However, the Supreme Court later adopted a different stance in Pradeep S/o Rajkumar Vs. Manganese Ore India, which was determined on 10.12.2021, concluding that the employer had the burden of demonstrating the employee’s gainful employment during the relevant period. It is challenging to determine the current legal position in light of these contradictory Supreme Court rulings. The fact that the employer will not be able to recoup the back wages that were already paid to the worker under orders issued under Section 17B of the ID Act while the appeal is pending, even if the High Court or the Supreme Court ultimately overturns the reinstatement order, further exacerbates the issues facing industries. The case of Dilip Mani Dubey vs. Siel Limited and others reaffirmed this stance. Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is relevant while evaluating the burden of proof for gainful work because it specifies that the burden of proof rests with the individual when certain facts are particularly within his knowledge. An employee’s employment at another company during the trial or appeal period becomes a fact that he is specifically aware of. Therefore, it must be the employee’s responsibility to demonstrate that they are not engaged in gainful job. In Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar, the Supreme Court expressed this opinion. In light of the current legal system and rulings, the legislature must intervene to resolve the confusion and enact strict legislation that forbids the abuse of the ID Act’s welfare provisions. To make sure that the advantage of Section

Misuse of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act: Challenges for Employers and Legal Loopholes Read More »

Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty.

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. Punjab & Haryana High Court: Child in Womb During Accident Is Subject To Reimbursement Under MV Act What it implies signifies Sam Altman claims that OpenAI’s GPUs are “melting” over Ghibli-style AI art Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: Gurminder Singh, Punjab Advocate General, Steps Down Over 3 Crore Cases Disposed of in First National Lok Adalat of 2025; Settlement Value Crosses ₹18,212 Crore AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF CSR IN THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 On April 14, the center announces a day off in honor of Ambedkar’s birthday anniversary. The Supreme Court requires a preliminary investigation before filing a formal complaint for some speech and expression-related offenses. Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty.                                                            NITU KUMARI 03 Apr 2025 SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN vs STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICEOn 21 March 2023 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAINHERENT JURISDICTIONReview Petition (Crl.) Nos. 159-160 of 2013INCriminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011 Sundar @ Sundarrajan … Petitioner versusState (India) by Inspector of Police … Respondent Date Of Judgment:- March 21, 2023Case citation:- 2023 INSC 324Presiding judges:-Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (Chief Justice)Hima Kohli Factual Background On 27 July 2009, the Petitioner kidnapped a seven-year-old child in Kammapuram, Tamil Nadu. He made two calls to the victim’s mother, demanding a ransom of Rs 5 lakhs. On 30 July 2009, the police raided the house of the Petitioner and arrested him and a co-accused. The Petitioner confessed to strangling the child and disposing of his body in a tank. On the basis of the Petitioner’s confession, the police recovered the victim’s body from the tank. The petitioner was convicted by the Cuddalore Trial Court of kidnapping and killing the child. In accordance with Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, he was found guilty of kidnapping and murder and given the death penalty. The co-accused was found not guilty of any charges. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his conviction before the Madras High Court. Additionally, a Supreme Court of India appeal heard by a Division Bench consisting of two judges was denied. The conviction and the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court were maintained by both appellate courts. In Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2014 INSC 590, the Supreme Court ruled that applications seeking a review of death penalty sentences have to be heard in public. The petitioner contended that because his conviction contained judicial mistakes, it should be reviewed. He maintained that even if his guilt were proven, his sentence should be mitigated because the courts had not taken into account mitigating circumstances when they sentenced him to death. The State of Tamil Nadu argued that the claimed mistakes did not justify the Supreme Court’s limited review authority. Issue Of the Case (i) Should the conviction of the petitioner for kidnapping and murder (under Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) be reviewed by the Supreme Court?(ii) Was it appropriate to give the petitioner the death penalty? Judgment The Supreme Court upheld the petitioner’s conviction for kidnapping and murder. However, it came to the conclusion that neither the Trial Court nor the appellate courts had considered mitigating circumstances while determining whether to execute the Petitioner, which was only appropriate in very rare situations. The Supreme Court changed the petitioner’s sentence to life imprisonment for at least 20 years with no chance of parole. The court’s decision was written by Chief Justice Chandrachud. a. Ratio Decidendi No errors apparent on the face of the record The prosecution‘s case was supported by compelling witness testimony and documentary evidence, and the court determined that the petitioner had failed to cast a reasonable doubt on it. The conviction of the petitioner for kidnapping and murder was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which was satisfied with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, the High Court, and its Division Bench. Examining both aggravating and mitigating conditions The Supreme Court determined that before imposing the death penalty, the Trial Court had not given the Petitioner a proper hearing on sentencing. Neither the Trial Court nor the appellate courts had sincerely attempted to take into account mitigating factors that would indicate the Petitioner’s potential for reform or rehabilitation. Rather, the punishment was enforced and validated based only on the heinousness of the offense. The Supreme Court’s Division Bench concluded that the Petitioner’s choice to kill a family’s sole son, who would have continued the family line, constituted an aggravating circumstance. Conclusion The Supreme Court of India modified the petitioner’s death sentence to life imprisonment for a minimum of twenty years without mercy or remission in the case of Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State by Inspector of Police. Although the court took into account the mitigating circumstances and determined that the death penalty was not justified, it affirmed the petitioner’s conviction for the kidnapping and murder of a 7-year-old boy. Additionally, the court directed the Registry to register a suo motu contempt proceeding against the Inspector of Police for concealing material information regarding the petitioner’s conduct in prison. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case laws Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 3, 2025 • Case law, Live cases • No Comments Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 1, 2025 • Case law • No

Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. Read More »

The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act.

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. Punjab & Haryana High Court: Child in Womb During Accident Is Subject To Reimbursement Under MV Act What it implies signifies Sam Altman claims that OpenAI’s GPUs are “melting” over Ghibli-style AI art Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: Gurminder Singh, Punjab Advocate General, Steps Down Over 3 Crore Cases Disposed of in First National Lok Adalat of 2025; Settlement Value Crosses ₹18,212 Crore AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF CSR IN THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 On April 14, the center announces a day off in honor of Ambedkar’s birthday anniversary. The Supreme Court requires a preliminary investigation before filing a formal complaint for some speech and expression-related offenses. Orissa High Court Fines Woman Who Sought Pet Dog’s Custody From Daughter-In-Law After Dowry Dispute The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. MAHI SINHA 02 Apr 2025 Update: 02 Apr 2025 NITIN UPADHYAY …………….PetitionerVsUNION OF INDIA AND ORS …………Respondent Today the Supreme Court of India declined to consider a writ petition contesting the legality of Section 4(2) of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which states that any legal actions pertaining to a place of worship’s religious character that are started prior to August 15, 1947, will end on the Act’s effective date. However, the petitioner was given permission by the court to submit a request in the ongoing challenge to the Act, which is titled Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India. Notably, a number of petitions challenging the legality of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 have already been brought before the Court. On December 12, a bench made up of Justices PV Sanjay Kumar, KV Viswanathan, and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna issued a landmark ruling prohibiting new lawsuits and survey orders against religious places. At the beginning, the CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar bench stated that the current plea was identical to the ongoing challenge. The CJI replied, “This is the same plea, what is the difference?” Nevertheless, the lawyer for the petitioner pleaded with the court to accept it for hearing and include it in the current batch. He further stated, “There is a subtle difference in what is being said, I’ll address the Court.” The Bench declared, “We are not inclined to interfere in the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution,” declining to consider the case further. Under the currently ongoing challenge, the applicant was given the freedom to file an application. Notably, the Court ruled on December 12 during the hearing of the ongoing case that courts should refrain from issuing enforceable interim or final rulings, including examination orders, in continuing challenges (such as those involving Gyanvapi Mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, Sambhal Jama Masjid, etc.). While considering a number of petitions contesting the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and one requesting the Act’s execution, the interim ruling was issued. S.4(2) – Why Was This Section Challenged? The petition specifically challenges S.4(2) of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which specifies that if, at the time this Act is enacted, any suit, appeal, or other proceeding pertaining to the alteration of the religious nature of any place of worship that existed on August 15, 1947, is still pending before any court, tribunal, or other governing body, it will cease to exist, and no suit, appeal, or other proceeding pertaining to any such issue shall lie on or after such beginning in any court, tribunal, or other authority: As long as any lawsuit, appeal, or other action brought on the grounds that a religious conversion occurred in a particular location after August 15, 1947, is still pending at the time this Act goes into effect, it will be resolved in line with subsection (1). According to S.4(1), a house of worship that was established on August 15, 1947, shall maintain its religious identity as of that day. Among other things, Section 4(2) of the Act has been contested on the grounds that it infringed upon fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution of India by violating the right to reclaim deity-owned property that has been wrongfully taken by other communities. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab & Haryana High Court: Child in Womb During Accident Is Subject To Reimbursement Under MV Act Punjab & Haryana High Court: Child in Womb During Accident Is Subject To Reimbursement Under MV Act sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments What it implies signifies Sam Altman claims that OpenAI’s GPUs are “melting” over Ghibli-style AI art What it implies signifies Sam Altman claims that OpenAI’s GPUs are “melting” over Ghibli-style AI art sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 2, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. Read More »

Breaking: Aasaram Bapu’s interim bail in the rape case is extended by the Gujarat High Court after a tie-breaker judge determines adequate medical justification.

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Orissa High Court Fines Woman Who Sought Pet Dog’s Custody From Daughter-In-Law After Dowry Dispute Breaking: Aasaram Bapu’s interim bail in the rape case is extended by the Gujarat High Court after a tie-breaker judge determines adequate medical justification. “Battle Between Law, Faith, and Politics”: New Controversy Is Sparked by Namaz Curbs in Uttar Pradesh Shattering the Stereotypes: Separating Fact from Fiction in Personal Injury Lawsuits Punjab Government Notifies Supreme Court of Farmers’ Protest | Dallewal Ends Quickly, NH Opens After Removing Demonstrators The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that law schools who admit candidates with no BCI authorization would face criminal charges. Supreme Court: Motor Accident Claims | Multiplier Cannot Be Dropped Since Complainant Was Making Foreign Currency Due to jurisdictional errors in TADA sworn statements, the Supreme Court maintains the acquittal of six convicts in the 1990 Kashmir University VC murder case. Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape. Breaking: Aasaram Bapu’s interim bail in the rape case is extended by the Gujarat High Court after a tie-breaker judge determines adequate medical justification. MAHI SINHA 29 Mar 2025 Update: 28 March 2025 On Friday, March 28, the Gujarat High Court granted three months of interim release to Asaram Bapu, who was found guilty in a 2023 sessions court rape case in 2013 and is currently undergoing a life sentence. Subsequently, a division bench a while ago issued a split decision. Justice AS Supehia, the third judge to hear Asaram’s plea, stated in his judgment:“I believe the applicant is entitled to interim bail based on my overall assessment of the rulings made by the (division) bench and the Supreme Court‘s ruling. An 86-year-old who is ill cannot be said to be restricted to a certain treatment or medication regimen.” When Asaram Bapu filed a petition with the high court, requesting six months of interim release, his attorney contended that the doctors believed Asaram Bapu needed eighty days of Panchkarma treatment. Notably, in January of the current year, the Supreme Court allowed him temporary bail until March 31 due to medical reasons. Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt‘s division bench issued a mixed decision on Asaram’s plea earlier today. Justice Vora granted temporary bail for three months, while Justice Bhatt declined the plea. Justice Supehia’s Judgment: In his ruling, Justice Supehia stated:”The State has not claimed that the applicant has abused their freedom for the last three months. According to Justice Ilesh Vora’s confirming opinion, the application is permitted under the situation at hand. The point of disagreement is addressed appropriately.” Justice Bhatt’s Dissent: In the outcome, Justice Bhatt stated that the Supreme Court had given Asaram Bapu temporary parole from January 7 to March 31. He saw numerous holistic and ayurvedic doctors between January 28, 2025, and February 19, 2025; however, he only saw them once, and despite their advice, he did not receive additional therapies from them. Noting the documents relating to Asaram Bapu receiving Panchkarma treatment, Justice Bhatt stated that it is quite unexpected that, despite the claim put forward that the practice of Ayurveda was ongoing, Asaram Bapu sought rehabilitation from the relevant hospital on March 1st, despite being on temporary bail since January 7.”There is no ‘need’ determined by Asaram for granting temporary bail on healthcare grounds,” the judge declared. Justice Vora’s Judgment: In his ruling, Justice Vora noted that Asaram Bapu was eighty-six years old. According to the judge, he was diagnosed with: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease High blood pressure Lack of thyroid Iron deficiency Gastrointestinal bleeding when he was admitted to AIIMS, Jodhpur in 2024. After being taken to the intensive care unit, he was evaluated and classified as a “high-risk patient” by the Medical Board Committee, which was made up of eight physicians, and they recommended a coronary artery bypass heart operation. Judge Vora provided Asaram short-term bail for three months on the identical conditions set by the Supreme Court, noting that this bail will not consequently enable the person seeking bail to request further extensions due to his serious medical condition, which necessitates specialized care and ongoing support from nurses that is not accessible from jail. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Breaking: Aasaram Bapu’s interim bail in the rape case is extended by the Gujarat High Court after a tie-breaker judge determines adequate medical justification. Breaking: Aasaram Bapu’s interim bail in the rape case is extended by the Gujarat High Court after a tie-breaker judge determines adequate medical justification. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments “Battle Between Law, Faith, and Politics”: New Controversy Is Sparked by Namaz Curbs in Uttar Pradesh “Battle Between Law, Faith, and Politics”: New Controversy Is Sparked by Namaz Curbs in Uttar Pradesh sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab Government Notifies Supreme Court of Farmers’ Protest | Dallewal Ends Quickly, NH Opens After Removing Demonstrators Punjab Government Notifies Supreme Court of Farmers’ Protest | Dallewal Ends Quickly, NH Opens After Removing Demonstrators sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 28, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Breaking: Aasaram Bapu’s interim bail in the rape case is extended by the Gujarat High Court after a tie-breaker judge determines adequate medical justification. Read More »

Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape. In the death case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the CBI files a closure report. Men Accused of Vandalizing the spot Where Artist Kunal Kamra Played Are Released on Bail by Mumbai Court Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra: N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons NITU KUMARI 26 Mar 2025 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONWrit Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023 Sukanya Shantha …PetitionerVersusUnion of India & Ors. …Respondents Date Of Judgment: October 3, 2024Case Citation: 2024 INSC 753Presiding judges:Chief Justice (Dr.) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,Justice Jamshed B. Pardiwala,Justice Manoj Misra Introduction A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra gave a slew of directions prohibiting caste-based discrimination in prisons. Factual Background The article “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System” was written by journalist Sukanya Shantha (“Petitioner”) and published on December 10, 2020. Discrimination in prisons based on caste was emphasized in the article. Subsequently, the Petitioner challenged the legitimacy of certain clauses of State Prison Manuals before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Some of the Prison Manual provisions challenged stated that:(i) A convict sentenced to simple imprisonment shall not be called upon to perform duties of a degrading or menial character unless he belongs to a class or community accustomed to performing such duties;(ii) A convict overseer may be appointed as a night guard provided he does not belong to any class that may have a strong natural tendency to escape, such as men of wandering tribes;(iii) Food shall be cooked and carried to the cells by prisoner-cooks of suitable caste;(iv) Sweepers should be chosen from the Mether or Hari caste, also from the Chandal or other castes, if by the custom of the district they perform similar work when free; and(v) Any prisoner in a jail who is of so high a caste that he cannot eat food cooked by the existing cooks shall be appointed a cook and be made to cook for the full complement of men. The Petitioner argued that caste-based discrimination continues to persist in prisons. The States of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Odisha, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu appeared before the Supreme Court. Issue Of The Case Whether provisions in the Prison Manuals of various States that distinguish between inmates based on caste are unconstitutional. Whether using vague and indeterminate criteria like “habit,” “custom,” “superior mode of living,” and “natural tendency to escape” as a basis for classifying prisoners serves as a valid differentia or merely acts as a proxy for caste-based discrimination against marginalized communities. Whether prison authorities’ practice of segregating inmates based on caste identity, justified as a measure to prevent conflicts and maintain discipline, is constitutional and compatible with fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Indian Constitution. Observations The Court ruled that caste-based segregation in jails breaches core constitutional safeguards and continues to discriminate against underprivileged people, even when it is justified under the guise of maintaining discipline. The Court categorically rejected the “separate but equal” theory, concluding that it is incompatible with the Indian Constitution and cannot be utilized to support caste-based prison segregation. The Court observed that prison authorities’ duty to maintain discipline cannot be discharged at the cost of violating fundamental rights and correctional needs of inmates, stating that alternative non-discriminatory measures must be adopted. The Court concluded that definitions of “habit,” “custom,” “superior mode of living,” and “natural tendency to escape” that were used to categorize prisoners were unconstitutionally ambiguous and imprecise, acting only as stand-ins for discrimination based on caste. The Court ruled that, with the exception of certain limited uses to advance equality and social justice, caste-based classification—whether direct or indirect—is prohibited under the Constitution. The Court found that caste-based prisoner classification is arbitrary and unlawful since it lacks any logical connection to the justifiable goals of security, reform, or rehabilitation. The Court pointed out that caste-based isolation will exacerbate caste tensions and hostility rather than address them, undermining the prison system’s rehabilitative goals. Judgment A three-judge Supreme Court bench ruled that the challenged Prison Manual provisions breached Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23. The Court ordered the States to amend their jail manuals within three months. It also asked each state to provide a status report. The court’s decision was written by Chief Justice Chandrachud. Conclusion In addition to ordering extensive reforms in all States and Union Territories and establishing a monitoring system to guarantee compliance and stop prejudice inside the prison system, the Supreme Court ruled that caste-based prison segregation was unconstitutional. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at

Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons Read More »

The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape.

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape. In the death case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the CBI files a closure report. Men Accused of Vandalizing the spot Where Artist Kunal Kamra Played Are Released on Bail by Mumbai Court Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra: N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape. MAHI SINHA 26 Mar 2025 Updated: 24th march,2025 The Allahabad High Court‘s ruling that grasping a young girl’s bosom, severing the thread of her pajamas, and making an effort to pull her under a culvert wouldn’t qualify as rape or an attempted rape was overturned by the Supreme Court of India today in a writ case. A party who has never heard of the criminal proceedings submitted the writ petition. Under Article 136, a Special Leave Petition must be submitted to the SC in order to contest a High Court order. Many rulings by the Supreme Court have found that a writ petition filed under Article 32 cannot be maintained against a High Court decision. According to the prosecution, the 11-year-old victim’s bosom was grabbed by the accused, Pawan and Akash, who then snapped the thread of her pajamas and made an effort to pull her under the culvert. The concerned trial court invoked Section 376 and Section 18 (attempt to commit an offence) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, deeming it an attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault or rape, and issued a summons order in accordance with these provisions. Nonetheless, the High Court mandated that the accused be tried in accordance with Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with purpose to disrobe) and Section 9/10 of the POCSO Act, which are minor charges. There was a great deal of debate surrounding the edict, and many people were against it. The Advocate’s opening remarks before a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale stated that the motto “Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao” exists. He was about to continue when Justice Bela interrupted, saying that “no lecture baazi” should be permitted in the courtroom. She also asked why the counsel who filed the writ petition was not in the courtroom and who his name was on file. Although he was not there, the Advocate retorted that the AOR had given him permission to debate. After that, Justice Bela asked why the petitioner, who was also absent, was there. After that, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The Union Government, the Ministry of Women and Child Welfare, and the Allahabad High Court were all cited as respondents in the case by the petitioner. The High Court made a distinction in this case between preparation and attempt. According to the facts of the case and the accusations made against Pawan and Akash, the accused hardly ever attempted rape. To file a charge of attempted rape, the prosecution must prove that the case had progressed past the preparatory stage. As the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra partially granted the criminal revision petition made by three accused, it noted that the main distinction is that there is more determination between planning and actually attempting to conduct an offense. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape. The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments In the death case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the CBI files a closure report. In the death case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the CBI files a closure report. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Men Accused of Vandalizing the spot Where Artist Kunal Kamra Played Are Released on Bail by Mumbai Court Men Accused of Vandalizing the spot Where Artist Kunal Kamra Played Are Released on Bail by Mumbai Court sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape. Read More »

In the death case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the CBI files a closure report.

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape. In the death case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the CBI files a closure report. Men Accused of Vandalizing the spot Where Artist Kunal Kamra Played Are Released on Bail by Mumbai Court Kunal Kamra’s Joke On Eknath Shinde Sparks Political Storm In Maharashtra: N Hariharan, a senior advocate, was elected president of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal In the death case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the CBI files a closure report. MAHI SINHA 26 Mar 2025 Updated: 25th march,2025 Actor Sushant Singh Rajput‘s death case has a closure report issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In Bandra, the actor was discovered hanging on June 14, 2020. A special court in Mumbai received the CBI’s findings on Saturday and will now determine whether to accept the report or direct the agency to conduct additional investigation, authorities told news agency PTI. According to the first report from the Mumbai Police, Rajput committed suicide. The preliminary findings indicated that depression might have played a role, but investigators had not discovered any indication of forced entrance. No suicide note was found at the scene, but his body was found hanging from the ceiling fan. Subsequently, Sushant’s family filed a formal complaint in Patna against Rhea Chakraborty and others, claiming that they had assisted suicide, committed theft, cheated, and been wrongfully imprisoned. The Mumbai Police, who had been in charge of the inquiry at first, and the Bihar Police then got into a jurisdictional conflict. On the suggestion of the Bihar government, the national government authorized a CBI investigation into the matter. The Supreme Court of India ordered the CBI to assume responsibility for the investigation on August 19, 2020, giving the central agency complete authority to carry out the investigation. The charges of “poisoning and strangling” in the case were rejected by forensic experts at AIIMS in their final medico-legal opinion to the CBI. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons Supreme Court of India: Breaking Chains – Ending Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape. The Supreme Court rejects the Writ Petition against the Allahabad High Court, holding that grabbing breasts and severing the pyjama string does not amount to an attempt at rape. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments In the death case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the CBI files a closure report. In the death case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the CBI files a closure report. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 26, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

In the death case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the CBI files a closure report. Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote