Author: Anvita Dwivedi

In a significant ruling strengthening procedural safeguards in disciplinary jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has held that a disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment on an employee for a charge that was never originally framed, unless a fresh show-cause notice is issued granting the employee an opportunity to defend against the new allegation. The judgment reaffirms the foundational principles of natural justice and due process in departmental inquiries, particularly the right of a delinquent employee to know and respond to the exact charges levelled against them. The ruling arose in the case of a senior medical practitioner who had faced disciplinary action…

The Delhi High Court has delivered a firm and uncompromising order refusing bail to a self-styled faith healer accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl under the pretext of removing a “jinn.” The ruling, rendered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, reflects a sharp judicial recognition of how superstition and blind faith can be weaponised to perpetrate grave sexual offences. The case is not merely one of sexual violence, but of calculated exploitation rooted in psychological dominance and social vulnerability. At the heart of the prosecution’s case lies a disturbing narrative: the minor victim, suffering from an illness, was taken to…

In a nuanced ruling reflecting the complexities of multi-layered criminal prosecutions, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Leena Paulose wife of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar in a money laundering case initiated by the Enforcement Directorate, while simultaneously ensuring that she remains in custody owing to her involvement in a separate and graver prosecution under organised crime laws. The decision underscores a critical doctrinal position: bail in one proceeding does not dilute incarceration arising from independent criminal liability in another. The case forms part of the sprawling ₹200-crore extortion scandal that has drawn sustained judicial attention across multiple forums. While…

In a significant reaffirmation of equality jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) who secure marks above the general category cut-off on their own merit must be considered against unreserved vacancies, rather than being confined to the reserved quota. The ruling, delivered by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, strengthens the doctrine of “upward movement” and aligns disability rights with broader constitutional principles governing reservation and merit. The case arose from concerns regarding the persistent denial of general category placement to PwBD candidates who had qualified on merit. Despite securing…

In a telling assertion of judicial priority, the Supreme Court of India recently declined a request by the Union government seeking adjournment in a batch of petitions challenging the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners. The Court’s refusal, accompanied by the observation that the matter was of greater importance, underscores a growing judicial impatience with delays in adjudicating issues that bear directly on the integrity of democratic institutions. The petitions before the Court assail the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of…

In a significant ruling arising out of the Haldwani (Banbhoolpura) riots case, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the grant of default bail to certain accused, holding that the benefit of statutory bail cannot be sustained where the accused failed to promptly challenge the extension of time granted for investigation. The decision marks an important clarification of the procedural discipline required under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), particularly in complex criminal investigations. The controversy stemmed from the grant of default bail by the Uttarakhand High Court, which had held that the accused were entitled…

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated a crucial principle governing religious endowments: the mere exercise of supervisory or administrative functions in temple affairs, including appointment of pujaris, does not create or confer proprietary title over temple property. The judgment marks a reaffirmation of long-settled jurisprudence that separates management rights from ownership, while also clarifying ambiguities that frequently arise in disputes involving religious institutions. At the heart of the controversy was a claim that entities exercising control over temple administration particularly in the appointment and oversight of priests could assert a form of proprietary interest over…

The Supreme Court Collegium has recently recommended the elevation of ten advocates as judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, marking a notable development in the ongoing effort to strengthen judicial capacity in one of India’s busiest constitutional courts. This move comes at a time when High Courts across the country continue to grapple with substantial vacancies, directly affecting the speed and quality of justice delivery. The recommended candidates comprise a mix of experienced practitioners from the Bar, including senior advocates and the sitting Advocate General of Haryana. Their selection reflects an institutional preference for individuals with extensive litigation…

In a significant development in India’s insolvency jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil may be invoked to include the assets of subsidiary or group companies in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of a holding company. The ruling marks a notable shift from a rigid adherence to corporate separateness toward a more substance-oriented approach, particularly in cases where multiple entities operate as an integrated economic unit. The case arose from insolvency proceedings involving a real estate company whose projects had stalled, leaving homebuyers in a precarious position. The National Company…

In a development that underscores the complex intersection of criminal procedure, judicial propriety, and litigant autonomy, the Delhi High Court has moved to appoint senior advocates as amicus curiae in the ongoing excise policy case involving Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia. The decision follows an unprecedented boycott by the accused leaders, who declined to participate in proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, raising deeper constitutional questions about fair trial guarantees and the limits of litigant dissent. The controversy originates from the Central Bureau of Investigation’s appeal challenging the trial court’s discharge of Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others in the Delhi excise…