Author: Anvita Dwivedi

In a deeply concerning development with far-reaching constitutional and humanitarian implications, the Supreme Court of India has sought a response from the Union Government on a petition seeking urgent repatriation of 26 Indian nationals allegedly coerced into fighting in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The case brings into focus not only the plight of Indian citizens abroad but also the extent of the State’s constitutional obligation to protect life and liberty beyond territorial borders. The petition, filed by family members of the affected individuals, invokes the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking issuance of a writ of…

In a significant ruling refining the contours of arbitration law in India, the Supreme Court has held that a mere general reference to a tender document containing an arbitration clause does not amount to its incorporation into a contract, unless there is a clear and conscious intention of the parties to do so. The judgment reinforces a crucial contractual principle which denotes that arbitration, being a consensual dispute resolution mechanism, cannot be inferred by implication or vague reference. The case arose from a dispute where the High Court had appointed an arbitrator on the premise that the arbitration clause contained…

In a significant ruling at the intersection of free expression, electoral regulation, and judicial restraint, the Madras High Court has dismissed writ petitions seeking to restrain the screening of the film “Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge” in Tamil Nadu during the ongoing Assembly elections. The decision reinforces a key constitutional principle courts cannot curtail artistic expression in the absence of a clear statutory prohibition, even during the subsistence of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice G. Arul Murugan categorically held that there exists no legal framework prohibiting the release or screening of…

In a significant development at the intersection of free speech, platform regulation, and intermediary liability, the Delhi High Court is examining whether social media platform X Corp could lose its statutory “safe harbour” protection for failing to act against allegedly unlawful content posted by journalist Rana Ayyub. The proceedings have brought into sharp focus the scope of due diligence obligations under India’s Information Technology framework, particularly when platforms are put on notice regarding allegedly illegal content. The Union Government, in its submissions before the Court, has argued that X Corp’s continued inaction despite receiving “actual knowledge” of the impugned tweets…

In a significant and rare development in India’s constitutional landscape, Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court has tendered his resignation to the President of India amid ongoing impeachment proceedings triggered by serious allegations of misconduct. The resignation comes at a critical juncture when institutional processes for judicial accountability were already underway thereby raising complex legal questions about the interaction between resignation and constitutional removal proceedings under Articles 124(4) and 217 of the Constitution. The controversy surrounding Justice Varma traces back to a fire incident at his official residence in New Delhi, during which unaccounted cash was allegedly discovered,…

In a significant development highlighting the intersection of custodial rights, gender identity, and constitutional dignity, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has taken note of the absence of separate cells and facilities for transgender persons in jails and police lockups across Punjab, raising concerns over systemic gaps in protecting vulnerable communities within custodial settings. The matter arose from a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions for creation of separate wards, lockups, and toilets for transgender persons in prisons and police stations, along with mechanisms for gender identification and dedicated protection systems. In response to earlier directions issued by the High Court,…

In a significant ruling shaping the contours of criminal jurisprudence under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where reliable and unimpeachable material effectively demolishes the prosecution’s case at its foundation. The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s role in preventing misuse of criminal law, while carefully balancing it against the principle that criminal trials should ordinarily proceed on merits. The ruling arose in a case where the accused were charged with assaulting an elderly individual. However, the Supreme Court found that CCTV footage presented by the accused clearly contradicted the…

In a significant ruling clarifying the internal structure of Islamic religious institutions, the Supreme Court of India has held that a Sajjadanashin of a dargah is fundamentally distinct from a Mutawalli, reaffirming the conceptual separation between spiritual authority and administrative control under the Waqf framework. The judgment carries important implications for succession disputes, jurisdiction of civil courts, and limits of statutory control under the Waqf Act, 1995. At the heart of the ruling lies a doctrinal clarification is that a Sajjadanashin is the spiritual head of a dargah or Sufi shrine, responsible for preserving religious traditions, guiding disciples, and maintaining…

In a moment of profound constitutional significance, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India has commenced hearings in the long-pending Sabarimala reference, marking a decisive shift from a temple-entry dispute to a foundational examination of religious freedom, equality, and judicial review. The proceedings, which resumed after years of dormancy, are poised to redefine the contours of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, potentially reshaping the jurisprudence governing the intersection of faith and fundamental rights. The Sabarimala controversy traces its origins to the 2018 judgment that permitted entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala…

In a significant ruling reinforcing labour dignity in the age of digital workplaces, the Madras High Court has held that abruptly blocking an employee’s smart card access as a means of termination is legally unsustainable and violative of the basic dignity of labour. The judgment marks an important judicial intervention at the intersection of employment law, human dignity, and technology-driven workplace practices, cautioning employers against adopting mechanical or de-humanising methods of disengagement. The case arose from a dispute involving the termination of a long-serving employee, where the employer allegedly revoked access credentials effectively denying entry at the workplace without following…