Author: Anvita Dwivedi

In an important judgment reinforcing the constitutional principles of procedural fairness and administrative accountability, the Gauhati High Court has held that authorities undertaking eviction from reserved or government land cannot resort to a blanket or mechanical process without first considering the individual representation of each affected occupant in accordance with the applicable Assam Settlement Rules and the Assam Land Policy. While reiterating that unauthorized occupation of government or reserved land cannot create an indefeasible legal right, the Court simultaneously underscored that the State’s power of eviction is not unfettered. Every individual claiming eligibility for settlement, rehabilitation or protection under the…

In a significant interim order balancing the competing constitutional imperatives of effective criminal investigation and protection of personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India granted interim protection from arrest to DMK leader and former Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji in connection with the alleged TASMAC corruption case being investigated by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC). The order came shortly after the Madras High Court refused anticipatory bail, prompting Balaji to approach the apex court by way of a Special Leave Petition. While refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Supreme Court directed…

In a significant hearing that may have far-reaching implications for India’s anti-terror jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India questioned whether the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) could be invoked merely because an angry mob set a police station on fire during the 2024 Haldwani violence. Hearing the State’s challenge to the bail granted to one of the principal accused, the Bench posed a crucial legal question that goes to the heart of India’s counter-terrorism framework: “Is UAPA justified merely because a mob burnt a police station?” The observation immediately shifted the focus of the proceedings from the gravity of…

The Supreme Court of India has brought to a close one of the country’s most closely watched matrimonial disputes after Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and his estranged wife Payal Abdullah informed the Court that they had amicably resolved their differences through mediation and jointly sought dissolution of their marriage. Recording the settlement arrived at between the parties, the Supreme Court accepted their joint application and granted a decree of divorce, thereby concluding a long-pending matrimonial dispute that had remained the subject of litigation for several years. While the case inevitably attracted public attention because one of the…

In a significant proceeding touching upon the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, personal autonomy and individual liberty, the Allahabad High Court directed the production of two adult women who had allegedly renounced Hinduism and embraced Islam, observing that before any judicial conclusion could be reached, it was essential for the Court to interact with them personally and ascertain whether their decision had been taken voluntarily or under any form of coercion, inducement or unlawful restraint. The order came in a habeas corpus petition where allegations were raised that the women had been illegally detained following their conversion and marriage. Rather…

Reiterating one of the foundational principles governing modern arbitration law, the Allahabad High Court has held that not every procedural irregularity committed during arbitral proceedings is sufficient to invalidate an arbitral award. The Court observed that judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be invoked merely because an arbitral tribunal may have deviated from a procedural norm or because another procedure may have appeared more appropriate. Unless the alleged irregularity strikes at the root of the arbitral process by causing prejudice, violating principles of natural justice or affecting the fairness of the proceedings, the…

In a judgment that strikes at the very heart of judicial ethics and institutional impartiality, the Supreme Court of India has strongly criticised a sitting High Court Judge for hearing and deciding a matter involving a litigant who had previously been represented by the Judge during his years at the Bar. The Court observed that irrespective of whether the Judge acted with complete honesty or whether the final decision was legally correct, the very act of presiding over a former client’s case was inconsistent with the fundamental judicial principle that justice must not only be done but must also appear…

In a judgment that significantly clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Supreme Court of India has held that a reach stacker, a specialised heavy-duty container-handling machine commonly used in ports, container freight stations and logistics terminals, cannot be treated as a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, injuries arising from its operation cannot be adjudicated by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under Sections 165 and 166 of the Act. The Bench observed that the mere fact that a machine possesses wheels or is capable of limited movement does not…

In one of the most disturbing criminal proceedings to come before the Supreme Court of India in recent years, the Court’s continuing scrutiny of the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl in Ghaziabad has shifted the focus beyond the brutality of the crime itself to what the Bench described as a series of grave institutional failures that allegedly followed the incident. During the latest hearing, the Court was informed that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted pursuant to its earlier directions had recommended action against the private hospitals that allegedly refused emergency treatment to the child when she was…

The constitutional debate surrounding the appointment of India’s Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) has once again occupied centre stage before the Supreme Court of India, with the Union Government forcefully defending the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 against allegations that it compromises the independence of the Election Commission. During the latest hearing, the Attorney General for India submitted that the constitutional validity of a statute cannot be tested on the presumption that the Prime Minister or the political executive would act against democracy. According to…