Author: Anvita Dwivedi

In a significant consolidation of its evolving jurisprudence on hate speech, the Supreme Court of India has closed a batch of long-pending petitions concerning alleged instances of communal and inflammatory speech spanning political rallies, media broadcasts, religious congregations, and digital discourse. The decision, delivered in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India and connected matters, reflects a marked judicial reluctance to expand supervisory jurisdiction in an area the Court now considers sufficiently governed by existing statutory frameworks. The batch of cases covered a wide spectrum of controversies that had, over the years, attracted national attention ranging from the “goli maaro”…

In a strongly worded intervention addressing recurring stampede-like incidents in Mathura, the Allahabad High Court has expressed serious concern over the absence of a coherent policy framework governing crowd management and the proliferation of unauthorized constructions in the city’s temple zones. The Court’s observations emerge from proceedings that have gradually expanded beyond individual grievances to encompass systemic failures in urban planning and public safety. The matter was initially triggered by a petition alleging arbitrary demolition actions by the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (MVDA). However, during the course of hearing, the Court widened the scope of inquiry, taking judicial notice of…

In a sharply worded exchange during the ongoing Sabarimala reference hearings, the Supreme Court of India questioned the very foundation and purpose of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Indian Young Lawyers’ Association, which had originally sought the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple. The Court’s remarks signal a deeper judicial unease with the evolving nature of PIL jurisprudence, particularly where such petitions intersect with questions of faith, standing, and institutional legitimacy. The controversy traces back to the 2006 PIL that eventually culminated in the landmark 2018 judgment permitting women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala…

In a notable reaffirmation of the structural principles underlying India’s insolvency regime, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal preferred by Byju Raveendran challenging the restoration of the original Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the corporate insolvency resolution process of Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd. Upholding the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, the Court described it as a “perfect order,” thereby endorsing both the reasoning and the outcome adopted by the Tribunal. The ruling reinforces the centrality of creditor control and procedural integrity within the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The controversy stemmed from alterations made…

In a significant pronouncement reinforcing service jurisprudence and administrative finality, the Supreme Court of India has held that “fence-sitters” cannot be permitted to raise seniority disputes after third-party rights have crystallised. The ruling underscores a consistent judicial concern preventing belated challenges that disrupt settled service positions and create administrative uncertainty. The case arose in the context of delayed claims to seniority, where certain employees approached the court after a considerable lapse of time, seeking re-fixation of their position in the seniority list. By the time the challenge was raised, promotions had already been granted and third-party rights had accrued in…

In a politically and legally significant development, the Supreme Court of India has issued notice on a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision that granted a clean chit to former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda in the controversial Associated Journals Limited (AJL) land allotment case in Panchkula. The move revives a high-profile dispute that sits at the intersection of criminal law, administrative discretion, and allegations of political misuse of public land. The case traces its origins to the allotment of land in Panchkula to Associated Journals Limited, a company…

In a significant ruling that reshapes the contours of medical negligence litigation, the Supreme Court of India has held that legal heirs of a deceased doctor can be impleaded in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. At the same time, the Court introduced a crucial limitation such liability is confined strictly to the extent of the estate inherited from the deceased, and does not extend to the personal assets of the heirs. The decision clarifies an important gap in law, particularly in cases where prolonged litigation outlives the medical practitioner against whom negligence is alleged. The judgment resolves a long-standing…

In a decisive reaffirmation of the sanctity of decree execution, the Supreme Court of India has held that execution proceedings cannot be derailed by belated objections raised under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ruling marks a critical intervention against a recurring litigation strategy where obstructionist claims are introduced at advanced stages to frustrate the fruits of a decree. The case arose from a dispute where a third party sought to resist execution by raising objections at a significantly delayed stage, despite having prior knowledge of both the original proceedings and the execution process. The…

In a significant intervention ahead of the high-stakes West Bengal Assembly election results, the Supreme Court of India has sought to strike a calibrated balance between institutional neutrality and federal participation by permitting the inclusion of a State government nominee in the vote-counting process. The order comes in the backdrop of a contentious dispute over the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s decision to deploy only Central government and PSU personnel as counting supervisors and assistants. The controversy originated when the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) challenged the ECI’s directive mandating the use of Central personnel at counting tables, arguing that…

The growing judicial and academic scrutiny of restrictive clauses in construction contracts marks a critical shift in Indian contract jurisprudence one that questions whether “freedom of contract” can justify clauses that effectively extinguish legitimate claims. A recent analytical discourse highlights how such clauses, often embedded in standard-form infrastructure contracts, blur the line between a lawful commercial bargain and an unlawful exclusion of rights. At the heart of the issue lies the nature of modern construction contracts, particularly those involving State instrumentalities such as railways, highways, and public works departments. These agreements are typically drafted as boilerplate or standard form contracts,…