Author: Anvita Dwivedi

A recent plea before the Calcutta High Court seeking action against Suvendu Adhikari over allegedly inflammatory remarks made during a rally in Bhawanipore has once again brought into focus a recurring constitutional tension the fragile boundary between protected political speech and punishable incitement. The petition, filed in the nature of a public interest action, urges the Court to direct authorities to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the Leader of Opposition, alleging that his statements at the rally were capable of provoking communal disharmony and disturbing public order. While the High Court is yet to adjudicate the merits, the very invocation…

In a significant clarification of arbitration jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has recently revisited and consolidated the principles governing the distinction between the “seat” and “venue” of arbitration an issue that has repeatedly generated litigation due to imprecise drafting of arbitration clauses. While the Court’s ruling does not radically alter existing doctrine, it performs a crucial function: reaffirming settled principles and systematising judicial interpretation in an area marked by recurring ambiguity. At the heart of the dispute lies a deceptively simple question whether a place mentioned in an arbitration agreement constitutes merely a physical location for conducting proceedings (venue), or the…

In a ruling that foregrounds individual liberty within the electoral framework, the Supreme Court of India has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking to make voting compulsory for citizens. The Court’s refusal, though brief in form, carries profound constitutional implications reasserting that democratic participation in India remains a matter of choice, not coercion. The petition had urged the Court to direct the Union Government and the Election Commission to introduce a framework mandating citizens to cast their votes in elections. The underlying argument was rooted in democratic enhancement: that compulsory voting would improve electoral participation, reduce voter apathy,…

In a matter that sits at the intersection of public health anxieties and administrative autonomy, the Supreme Court of India recently declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation challenging the alleged sale of liquor in tetra pack packaging in Uttar Pradesh, instead granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate state authority. The order, though procedurally concise, carries layered implications for how courts engage with socio-regulatory policy questions. The case arose from a plea questioning the Uttar Pradesh excise framework, which was alleged to have permitted the sale of liquor particularly wine in small tetra pack formats. The petitioner…

In a development with consequences extending well beyond one industrialist’s dispute with lenders, the Supreme Court on April 16, 2026 refused to stay fraud-classification proceedings initiated against Anil Ambani’s loan accounts by Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank and IDBI Bank under the Reserve Bank of India’s 2024 Master Directions on fraud risk management. The Court also recorded Ambani’s statement that he wished to settle the matter with the banks, while expressly clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on that proposal; at the same time, it directed that the trial of the connected suit be expedited, subject to…

In a significant ruling that recalibrates the contours of banking liability under consumer law, the Supreme Court of India has held that a bank’s failure to present a cheque within its prescribed validity period constitutes a clear “deficiency in service” under the Consumer Protection framework. The judgment, delivered by a Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, affirms the principle that operational lapses in banking cannot be trivialised when they directly prejudice customer rights. At the heart of the dispute was a seemingly routine banking transaction that escalated into a question of institutional accountability. The complainant had deposited…

In a significant development within India’s top-tier law firm ecosystem, a group of five partners from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (CAM) has exited the firm to join rival AZB & Partners (AZB), signalling yet another high-value lateral shift in the competitive corporate legal market. The move, first reported by Bar & Bench, underscores the intensifying talent consolidation among India’s leading full-service firms. The departing cohort includes disputes partner Kapil Arora, who is set to join AZB as an Equity Partner, alongside Ajay Sawhney, who headed CAM’s Northern Region. In addition, project finance and infrastructure specialists Aditi Misra and Bhupendra Verma, along…

The evolving jurisprudence under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is increasingly placing it in direct tension with other specialised regulatory regimes, particularly securities law. A recent line of decisions by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), permitting the defreezing of demat accounts during insolvency proceedings, has brought this conflict into sharp focus. While these rulings are driven by the objective of maximising asset value for creditors, they raise deeper questions about the limits of insolvency jurisdiction, the role of sectoral regulators, and the future coherence of India’s economic regulatory framework. The controversy arises in cases where corporate…

In a significant ruling at the intersection of free speech, criminal justice, and privacy, the Sikkim High Court has held that fair and accurate reporting of an FIR does not amount to a “media trial”, reaffirming the constitutional role of the press as a watchdog in a democratic society. The judgment, while arising from a dispute over publication of an FIR-based news report, engages with broader constitutional tensions how far the media can go in reporting ongoing criminal proceedings without infringing the rights of the accused. The case arose from a petition filed by an accused person who sought removal…

In a significant ruling clarifying the jurisprudence surrounding declaratory decrees, the Supreme Court has held that a declaratory decree cannot be set aside merely because the decree-holder did not seek its execution, particularly where the plaintiff is already in possession of the property. At one level, the judgment resolves a long-standing dispute arising from a delayed challenge to a decree. At another, it reaffirms a foundational principle of civil procedure that declaratory relief operates in the realm of legal rights, not necessarily in the mechanics of enforcement. The case before the Court involved a decree passed in 1975 declaring the…