Author: Anvita Dwivedi
In a judgment reinforcing one of the foundational principles governing India’s civil justice system, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is not an appellate jurisdiction and therefore cannot be exercised merely to correct alleged factual errors or re-evaluate evidence, even where one party contends that material facts were concealed before the trial court. The Court observed that the revisional power of the High Court is confined to examining jurisdictional errors, illegal exercise of jurisdiction, material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, or failure to…
The Allahabad High Court has made a significant observation on the constitutional role of investigative agencies, holding that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is not powerless and is free to proceed in accordance with law if, during the course of its inquiry, it discovers any material indicating illegality or criminal misconduct. At the same time, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), observing that it failed to adequately explain the progress made in examining a complaint alleging disproportionate assets against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi. Consequently, the Court directed the CBI to file…
In a judgment of far-reaching significance for India’s juvenile justice jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has authoritatively clarified that the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) is a “heinous offence” within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, notwithstanding the fact that the statutory provision does not expressly prescribe a minimum term of imprisonment. Holding that life imprisonment constitutes the implied minimum punishment for murder, the Court rejected the argument that the offence should instead be classified as a…
In a significant hearing that may influence the future application of India’s law on unlawful assembly and rioting, the Supreme Court of India has expressed serious reservations over the tendency to invoke rioting provisions merely because an individual was present among a crowd that later turned unruly. Hearing the Chandigarh Administration’s challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision quashing criminal proceedings against Punjab Minister Aman Arora and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, the Court orally observed that “mere presence in an unruly group will not result in sharing common intention” and cautioned against an expansive application of…
In a judgment that powerfully reasserts the constitutional foundations of India’s criminal justice system, the Supreme Court of India has declared that constitutional safeguards, due process and the right to a fair trial cannot be compromised merely because an offence involves terrorism or shocks the collective conscience of society. Observing that the legitimacy of criminal justice lies not in the severity of punishment but in the fairness of the process through which guilt is determined, the Court emphasised that the greater the public outrage surrounding a crime, the greater becomes the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary to ensure that guilt…
The constitutional discourse surrounding judicial appointments in India once again came to the forefront when Chief Justice of India Surya Kant delivered a firm defence of the Supreme Court Collegium system, asserting that much of the criticism directed against it originates from individuals who neither understand the functioning of the judiciary nor appreciate the rigorous institutional process behind the appointment of judges to the constitutional courts. Addressing a felicitation ceremony organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to welcome five newly elevated judges of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice emphasised that appointments are not the product of arbitrary…
In a significant order examining the delicate relationship between individual autonomy, the State’s obligation to preserve life, and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty, the Delhi High Court directed that environmentalist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk be immediately shifted from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital, observing that permitting treatment at a hospital of his choice would better safeguard his fundamental rights. The Court held that where the Government itself has no objection to such a transfer and the patient’s family seeks specialised treatment at a private medical facility, compelling continued hospitalisation at a particular government institution would unnecessarily interfere with…
In a development that once again places the intersection of national security, cyber espionage and criminal jurisprudence under judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court has issued notice on an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision acquitting former BrahMos Aerospace engineer Nishant Agarwal of major charges relating to espionage, cyber terrorism and leaking sensitive defence information to Pakistan. While the Supreme Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, its decision to entertain the appeal indicates that important questions of law concerning the interpretation of the Official Secrets Act, 1923,…
Nearly three decades after one of Rajasthan’s deadliest acts of terror shook the nation, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a judgment that reaffirms a principle even more enduring than criminal punishment itself the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. In a significant decision, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence of Dr. Abdul Hameed, one of the convicts in the 1996 Samleti Bus Bomb Blast case, not because it found him innocent, but because it concluded that the criminal trial culminating in his conviction was fundamentally tainted by ineffective legal representation, thereby undermining the constitutional promise…
In a ruling that extends far beyond the nominal price of a paper carry bag, the South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has once again reaffirmed a fundamental principle of modern consumer jurisprudence that a consumer’s consent is meaningful only when it is informed. Holding Bata India Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission directed the footwear retailer to pay ₹10,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses after finding that the company had charged a customer ₹6 for a plain paper carry bag without prominently informing customers in advance that such a charge would be…