sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu
Menu

Union of India

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 »

Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension:

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today 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 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 Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: NITU KUMARI 01 Apr 2025 Delhi High Court upholds disability pension order for two Army personnel Court recalls former U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s ‘stirring words’ on patriotism that while ‘we sip our hot cappuccinos by the fireplace, soldiers are braving icy winds at the border’ Union Of India & Ors. Vs Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso On 27 March, 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIW.P.(C) 3545/2025, CM APPLs. 16579/2025 & 16580/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …..PetitionersVersusEX SUB GAWAS ANIL MADSO …..Respondent Date Of Judgment:- March 27, 2025Case citation:- 2025:DHC:2021-08Presiding judges:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKARHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL What is the case? Gawas Anil Madso, who joined the Indian Army in 1985, was among those discharged from military service in 2015 after being diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus (DM) Type II. Hearing the two appeals moved by the Union of India against the grant of disability pension to two soldiers by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), the court disagreed with the decision not to grant Gawas Anil Madso disability pension. Earlier, the Release Medical Board (RMB) concluded that Gawas would suffer 20 per cent disability for life and added that he was not entitled to disability pension. To this, the Delhi High Court bench disagreed. “The RMB Report is completely bereft of reasons, as to why, when the respondent (Madso) admittedly became a sufferer of DM 34 years after induction in service, the DM could be regarded as not attributable to military service,” Bar and Bench quoted the bench as saying. Acknowledging a service rule that a health condition arising during military service cannot automatically be presumed to have been caused by such service, the bench mentioned that the soldier doesn’t have to prove the health condition is attributable to military service. The bench, in its conclusion, stated that the army authorities have to show that the disease is not a result of military service. “While we are not doctors, it is a matter of common knowledge that diabetes is a disease which can be caused, and exacerbated, by stressful living conditions. The fact that the onset of the disease might have been while the officer was on a peace posting cannot, therefore, be determinative of the issue of whether the disease was, or was not, attributable to military service. In such a case, the RMB has a greater responsibility to identify the cause of the disease, so that a clear case, dissociating the disease and its onset, from the military service of the claimant officer, is established,” the court observed. Taking account of Madso’s case, the bench upheld the AFT’s decision to order the grant of disability pension to Madso. There are those who are willing to sacrifice their all for their country. Can anything we give to these true sons of the motherland ever be too much? Delhi High Court “A non-speaking report, merely holding, without prelude or preface, that the disease, though it arose during the military service of the claimant, was not attributable to or aggravated by military service, cannot suffice to deny him disability pension,” the court said. Justice Ajay Digpaul and Justice C. Hari Shankar’s bench noted that when a person enlists in the military, they run the risk of contracting an illness or becoming disabled. “The bravest of soldiers is prone, given the conditions in which he serves the nation, to fall prey to bodily ailments which, at times, may be disabling in nature, rendering him unable to continue in military service. In such circumstances, the least that the nation can do, by way of recompense for the selfless service that the soldier has lent it, is to provide comfort and solace during the years that remain,” it added. The Court clarified that this is the rationale behind the introduction of commendable measures for the payment of monetary benefits (such as disability pensions) to assist soldiers who suffer from illnesses or disabilities brought on by their military service. The Court also questioned if the selfless service rendered by soldiers can ever be truly compensated. In which case was John F. Kennedy invoked by the Delhi High Court? (John F. Kennedy said) “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” There are those of us who eulogize and revere these words, but stop there. Then there are those who make it part of their lives, and are willing to sacrifice their all for their country – who, while we sip our hot cappuccinos by the fireplace, are braving icy winds at the border, willing to lay down their lives at a moment’s notice. Can anything, that the nation, and we as its citizens, give to these true sons of the motherland, ever be too much?” the Court remarked. HC on Amin Chand’s plea The court also ruled in favour of Amin Chand, who joined the army in 2005 and was due to retire in

Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: 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 »

Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today 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 declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others MAHI SINHA 25 Mar 2025 Updated: 23th march,2025 Thirteen of the sixty-three Bangladeshi nationals held in the Matia transit camp in Assam have been deported, the Supreme Court was notified on Friday, March 21. The statement was taken from Assam’s affidavit in a case involving the detention and deportation of foreigners in Assam by a bench consisting of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. It is pointed out that on the basis of document at Annexure ‘B’ that out of the list which is referred in our order dated February 4, 2025, 13 Bangladeshi Nationals have been deported to Bangladesh”, the Court recorded in its order. Regarding 63 people in the transit camps whose nationality was verified, the Court had questioned the inaction on February 4, 2025. The Bangladeshi High Commission is now working on the verification procedure for the remaining detainees, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court on Friday. Nationality status verification (NSV) papers were typically given to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on February 14, 2025, with reminders sent on that same day, according to a chart included in an affidavit submitted by the Assam government. Annexed to the affidavit was a handing over and taking over letter that verified the deportation of 13 Bangladeshi citizens. By April 30, 2025, the Assam government was ordered by the court to provide a new affidavit outlining the NSVs’ current status and any upcoming deportations. On May 6, 2025, the case will be heard again. The fate of those whose nationality is still unknown is another important matter before the Court. The panel had previously ordered the Union of India to provide an explanation of its strategies for handling individuals whose nationalities are unclear but who have been proclaimed foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals. The Court gave the center until the end of April 2025 to respond, and on May 6, 2025, it will also be taken into consideration. BACKGROUND For neglecting to start the deportation procedure for people whose nationalities were known, the Assam government was chastised by the Court on February 4, 2025. The state might deport such people to the capital city of the respective country, Justice Oka said, expressing unhappiness with the state’s assertion that the inmates’ foreign addresses were unavailable. He highlighted that indefinite confinement without further action was inappropriate and chastised the state for its negligence. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat brought up the fact that deportations were halted because officials just concluded that people were not Indian nationals without verifying their true nationality throughout the hearing. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves went on to say that Bangladesh was illegally detaining and effectively stateless some people by refusing to recognize them as its nationals. According to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, there were two types of people: those whose nationality was known and those whose identity was yet unknown. Although the Court pointed out that deporting people in the first category was not difficult, it ordered the Union to make clear how it would handle the second category. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases 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. 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. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Read More »

Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today 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 declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court BCI Has No Business Interfering With Legal Education’ : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against HC Allowing 2 Convicts To Attend Law School Virtually Merchant Navy Officer’s murder:Parents Disown Daughter Accused Of Killing Husband ,Says ‘She Should Be Hanged’ Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation NITU KUMARI 24 Mar 2025 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAORIGINAL CIVIL/CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONWrit Petition (C) No. 162 of 2023 Vishal Tiwari …PETITIONER Versus Union of India …RESPONDENTS Date Of Judgment: January 3, 2024Case Citation: 2024 INSC 3Presiding Judges:Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. ChandrachudJustice Jamshed B. PardiwalaJustice Manoj Misra Factual Background: In a report released on January 24, 2023, the American investment research firm Hindenburg Research accused the Adani Group of neglecting to disclose important financial information, manipulating stock prices, and breaking SEBI regulations. Investor wealth was eroded as a result of this revelation, which caused the share price of the Adani Group of Companies to drop significantly. The Supreme Court of India received a number of petitions addressing the need to look into the Adani Group and shield investors from market shocks. In its ruling on March 2, 2023, the Court ordered SEBI to look into claims that the Adani Group may have violated regulations. To evaluate the issue and suggest actions to improve investor protection, an expert group was also formed. The petitioners asked for the creation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to supervise the inquiry and attempted to revoke some of the amendments made to the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investments) Regulations, 2014 and the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (“SEBI Regulations”). The expert committee turned in its findings on May 6, 2023, and SEBI filed a status report on August 25, 2023. Of the twenty-four investigations, SEBI has finished twenty-two as of the judgment date. Issue Of The Case: Whether the Supreme Court should transfer the investigation into the Adani Group from SEBI to a Special Investigation Team (“SIT”)? What is the scope of judicial review over the regulatory functions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”)? Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that courts have little authority to meddle in SEBI’s regulatory operations. The Court found no justification for rescinding the SEBI Regulations modifications. The Court decided that there was no need to move the inquiry to a SIT because there was no evident violation of SEBI’s regulations. The Court ordered SEBI and the Union Government to take into account the expert committee’s recommendations for fortifying the regulatory framework. It was Chief Justice Chandrachud who wrote the court’s ruling. Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court noted that it cannot judge whether rules created by statutory regulators such as SEBI are correct in its capacity as an appellate body. Judicial review is restricted to determining whether a policy is obviously arbitrary or infringes upon fundamental rights, constitutional requirements, or statutory legislation. The Court further ruled that courts should respect the knowledge of regulators who have taken expert opinions into account when creating their policies, especially in technical areas like economic and financial concerns. The Supreme Court maintained SEBI’s rules, ruling that the agency had adequately outlined the development and justification of its regulatory structure and that the processes it employed were neither unlawful nor capricious. During its probe of the Adani Group, the Supreme Court found no evidence of regulatory failure by SEBI. The Court noted that it should exercise its power to transfer investigations under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India only in extreme situations. Unless the investigating authority conducts the investigation in a clear, purposeful, and deliberate manner, the Court cannot step in. Conclusion: The case of Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India revolves around the allegations of stock market manipulation and regulatory violations by the Adani Group, as reported by Hindenburg Research. The Supreme Court of India ultimately concluded that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) did not lack efficiency in conducting the investigation and upheld the validity of the investigation held by SEBI. The court also clarified that its power to enter the regulatory domain and question SEBI’s delegated legislation powers is limited. Additionally, the court directed SEBI to complete the pending investigations preferably within three months. 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 Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Read More »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024.

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 Supreme Court Overrules Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU Role of technology in transforming the Indian judiciary COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024 07 Mar 2025 Table of contents Case Summary Issues in the case Case Analysis Specific Direction Conclusion Writ Petition (C) No. 880 of 2017               Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr.                  …Petitioner          Versus         Union of India & Ors.                                      …Respondents Date of judgement:- 15th february, 2024   Presiding judges:-  DY Chandrachud CJ., Sanjiv Khanna BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ… Case Summary:- The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme as unconstitutional, holding that anonymous political donations violate the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. A 5-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered a unanimous verdict with two concurring opinions. The Court ruled that transparency in political funding is crucial for an informed electorate and that the scheme’s anonymity undermines democratic principles by enabling quid pro quo arrangements. The petitioners challenged the scheme’s validity under Article 32, contesting amendments made through the Finance Act, 2017, and its classification as a Money Bill. The Court analyzed the right to information jurisprudence, emphasizing the link between economic and political inequality. It found that financial contributions to political parties significantly impact voters’ decision-making and that anonymity in funding hinders public scrutiny of potential policy influences. Rejecting the government’s argument that the scheme prevents black money in elections, the Court noted that alternative legal mechanisms, such as electronic transfers and Electoral Trusts, provide better transparency. Applying the proportionality test, it ruled that the scheme is not the least restrictive measure for achieving the stated objective. Consequently, the Court directed the immediate cessation of electoral bond issuance, mandated the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose details of past bond transactions to the Election Commission of India (ECI), and instructed the ECI to publish this data on its website. Bonds still within their validity period were ordered to be returned and refunded. Issues in the case:- Whether the non-disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties according to the electoral bond scheme and the amendments to Section 29-C of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, Section 182(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, Section 13-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is violative of the right to information guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a) in the Constitution. Whether unlimited corporate funding of the political parties as envisaged by the amendment to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act violates the principles of free and fair election under Article 14 of the Constitution. Case Analysis:- The Supreme Court examined whether the Right to Information (RTI) under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes access to details about financial contributions made to political parties. In doing so, the Court divided its jurisprudence on RTI into two phases. It emphasized that the RTI is not confined solely to government-related matters or public affairs but extends to information that is crucial for strengthening participatory democracy. Given that political parties play a vital role in the electoral process, as recognized in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, transparency regarding their funding is essential for voters to make informed choices. The Court acknowledged that political equality is a fundamental constitutional principle, ensuring that both the electorate and elected representatives are treated fairly. However, despite constitutional guarantees, political inequality persists, largely due to economic disparities. Those with greater financial resources often have a disproportionate influence over political decisions, thereby undermining democratic fairness. The Court underscored the need to assess the significance of financial transparency in political funding, particularly in light of India’s legal framework governing political party finances. A major concern highlighted was the potential for financial contributions to create quid pro quo arrangements, where monetary support to a political party translates into favorable policy changes or licensing benefits for the donor. This close connection between financial power and political decision-making raises concerns about undue influence on governance. Voter access to information regarding political donations is crucial for evaluating whether policymaking is being swayed by financial contributions. The Union of India (UOI) contended that political parties receiving contributions through electoral bonds remained unaware of donor identities, as the bonds did not display names and banks were prohibited from disclosing this information. The Court, however, dismissed this argument, stating that the scheme was not foolproof. It identified several loopholes that allowed political parties to discern the identities of donors, thereby negating the claim of anonymity. Ultimately, the Court ruled that information regarding political funding is indispensable for voters to exercise their franchise effectively. By anonymizing political donations, the electoral bond scheme infringed upon voters’ right to information, rendering it unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(a). The Court applied the proportionality test to determine whether this infringement could be justified. Additionally, the Court examined whether restricting voter access to financial contributions was justified in the interest of curbing black money in elections. Applying the proportionality standard, it assessed whether the electoral bond scheme was the least restrictive means to achieve this goal. The Court concluded that the scheme failed this test, as alternative legal mechanisms such as contributions through cheques, bank drafts, and electronic transfers already existed to address concerns related to

Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote