Author: Anvita Dwivedi

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…

In a development that once again foregrounds the uneasy relationship between preventive detention laws and constitutional liberty, the Supreme Court has declined to entertain a plea challenging the third detention order issued against Tamil YouTuber and journalist Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, directing the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court instead. The order, delivered by a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, may appear procedurally routine. Yet, in substance, it raises deeper questions about the limits of Article 32 jurisdiction, the repeated invocation of preventive detention, and the evolving judicial approach to liberty…

In a significant intervention at the intersection of criminal procedure, federal jurisdiction, and personal liberty, the Supreme Court has stayed the Telangana High Court’s order granting transit anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR registered by Assam Police. The ruling, while interim in nature, raises deeper questions about the scope of transit anticipatory bail, the doctrine of territorial jurisdiction, and the increasing judicial concern over forum shopping in criminal proceedings. The Telangana High Court had granted Khera one-week transit anticipatory bail, enabling him to approach the competent court in Assam. The relief was premised on…

The retirement of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, while an impeachment motion against him remained pending in Parliament, has brought into sharp focus a fundamental institutional paradox within India’s constitutional framework the absence of an effective and time-bound mechanism for judicial accountability. While the event formally marks the end of a judicial tenure, its implications extend far beyond an individual judge. It raises a deeper and more uncomfortable question: can a constitutional system that provides for removal of judges fail to operationalise it in practice? Justice Yadav demitted office on April 15, 2026, even as impeachment proceedings…

In a significant intervention at the intersection of criminal procedure, federal jurisdiction, and personal liberty, the Supreme Court has stayed the Telangana High Court’s order granting transit anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR registered by Assam Police. The ruling, while interiIm in nature, raises deeper questions about the scope of transit anticipatory bail, the doctrine of territorial jurisdiction, and the increasing judicial concern over forum shopping in criminal proceedings. The Telangana High Court had granted Khera one-week transit anticipatory bail, enabling him to approach the competent court in Assam. The relief was premised on…

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 is being positioned as a decisive reform to address the persistent delays and inefficiencies that have slowed India’s insolvency framework. Nearly a decade after the Code’s enactment, the need for reform is undeniable. However, the latest amendments do far more than streamline procedure they signal a deeper shift in the philosophy of insolvency law, moving it steadily from a revival-oriented framework to a creditor-driven enforcement mechanism. At the heart of the reform lies a crucial structural change: the near-mandatory admission of insolvency proceedings upon proof of debt and default. This significantly curtails…

The Union Government’s proposal to amend the Constitution to expand the Lok Sabha from 543 to 850 seats, while also permitting delimitation prior to the post-2026 Census, marks one of the most significant structural interventions in India’s representative democracy in recent decades. Though presented as an administrative and reform-oriented step, the proposal carries far-reaching implications for federal balance, electoral equity, and the future architecture of parliamentary representation. At its core, the proposed amendment seeks to fundamentally alter the framework governing delimitation. Under the existing constitutional scheme, particularly Article 82, delimitation is to be undertaken only after the first Census conducted…