Author: Anvita Dwivedi

The Supreme Court has brought a significant legal conclusion to the criminal proceedings arising from the student protests held across the country between July 20 and July 25, directing that the FIRs registered in connection with those protests shall not be pursued or investigated and shall be treated as closed for all purposes. Going beyond the FIRs specifically placed before it by the Centre and the States of Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Assam, the Court extended the protective direction across all States and Union Territories. The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice…

The Supreme Court has delivered an important reminder that access to justice is not satisfied merely by placing a lawyer’s name on the record. In a judgment arising from a criminal appeal against acquittal in a dowry-death case, a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that constitutional courts must remain sensitive to the difficulties faced by litigants and, where legal assistance is inadequate, must take affirmative steps to ensure that the litigant receives meaningful and competent representation. The Court accordingly set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that had dismissed an appeal because it was…

The Supreme Court has clarified that a statement made by a litigant in the course of court proceedings cannot automatically be elevated into a binding undertaking merely because the statement was recorded in a judicial order. In a significant ruling arising from enforcement proceedings initiated by the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA) against businessman Nimmagadda Prasad and entities connected with him, a three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana upheld the Telangana High Court’s conclusion that a statement made by IQuest Enterprises before the Commercial Court at Hyderabad was essentially…

The legal fraternity is deeply concerned over the reported disappearance of former Madras High Court Judge and Senior Advocate V. Sivagnanam, who has remained untraceable in Nepal since August 26 after catastrophic floods and landslides struck parts of the country. Justice Sivagnanam was travelling with a group of Tamil pilgrims when communication with him was lost following a WhatsApp call with his wife in the early hours of August 26. The Delhi Tamil Advocates Association has approached the Chief Justice of India, the Union Government and other authorities seeking immediate intervention to locate him, ascertain his safety and facilitate his…

The Supreme Court has deferred further consideration of the criminal proceedings against Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah over his controversial remarks concerning Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, after the State informed the Court that the investigation by the Special Investigation Team has been completed and the question of sanction for prosecution is presently before the competent authority. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was told that the sanction proposal has been forwarded for consideration and that a decision is expected shortly. The development brings the case to a legally…

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass any immediate prohibitory order against the proposed September 5 protest march announced by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) in Delhi, holding that the Court could not proceed on an assumption that the proposed demonstration would necessarily result in violence or disorder. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice to the Centre and the Delhi Police but declined the petitioner’s request for an urgent hearing before the scheduled march. The matter has been directed to be heard on September 10 along with…

The Supreme Court has clarified an important question concerning the valuation of immovable property for stamp-duty purposes, holding that where the governing valuation framework makes the actual use of the property relevant, the nature in which the land is in fact being used must prevail over its mere classification under a master plan. A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which had treated the disputed property as commercial merely because it was not situated in an officially designated industrial area and because manufactured goods were also being…

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed an important limitation on the State’s power to dispossess persons from immovable property, holding that summary eviction proceedings cannot be employed as a substitute for a properly constituted civil adjudication when the Government’s own title is subject to a bona fide and substantial dispute. A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling in M/s Circar Paper Mills Ltd. v. District Collector, Nellore District & Others, arising from a prolonged dispute concerning land in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. The judgment is significant because it places procedural discipline upon the State while…

The Bombay High Court at Goa has upheld the constitutional validity of the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026, but simultaneously imposed a stringent timetable for completing elections to 11 municipal councils, making it clear that a valid legislative amendment cannot become a device for indefinitely postponing constitutionally mandated local elections. A Division Bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Hiten Venegavkar rejected the challenge to the Ordinance while directing the State Election Commission to ensure that the municipal electoral process is completed within the constitutionally permissible timeframe. The Court’s judgment is significant because it draws a sharp constitutional distinction between…

The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with the Union Public Service Commission’s use of August 1 as the reference date for determining age eligibility in the Civil Services Examination, holding that the choice of a cut-off date falls primarily within the domain of the executive and recruiting authorities. A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Amit Mahajan rejected a challenge brought by a Civil Services Examination 2026 aspirant who argued that January 1 should instead be treated as the relevant date for determining whether a candidate had crossed the prescribed upper age limit. The judgment…