Author: Anvita Dwivedi

Five years after the custodial death of Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist Father Stan Swamy, the legal questions surrounding the operation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) continue to occupy the centre of India’s constitutional discourse. While the circumstances of his death in judicial custody in July 2021 remain one of the most debated episodes in recent criminal justice history, the larger legal conversation has gradually shifted from the individual tragedy to broader institutional concerns relating to prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the stringent statutory restrictions on bail under anti-terror legislation, and the balance between national security and the…

A Delhi Court has once again declined to grant bail to former student leader Umar Khalid and researcher Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy case arising out of the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, holding that it remains bound by the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment refusing them bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The order, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts, underscores the stringent statutory framework governing bail under anti-terror legislation and reiterates the constitutional principle that subordinate courts cannot depart from binding precedents laid down by the Supreme Court. While the…

In an important judgment reaffirming the constitutional architecture of judicial precedent, the Supreme Court has comprehensively explained the limited circumstances in which an earlier judgment may be declared per incuriam, cautioning that the doctrine remains a narrow exception to the settled principle of stare decisis. The Court held that a judicial decision can be branded per incuriam only where its ratio is irreconcilable with an earlier decision rendered by a Bench of co-equal or larger strength, or where the judgment was delivered in ignorance of a binding statutory provision or a governing rule that directly affected the outcome of the…

In a judgment that is expected to significantly streamline the adjudication of motor accident compensation claims across the country, the Supreme Court has laid down comprehensive guidelines governing the manner in which courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) should assess the annual income of deceased victims or injured claimants by relying upon Income Tax Returns (ITRs). Recognising the inconsistent approaches adopted by various tribunals and High Courts over the years, the Court has drawn a clear distinction between salaried employees and self-employed individuals, holding that while the immediately preceding year’s Income Tax Return should ordinarily be treated as the…

In a significant institutional development for India’s legal aid framework, the Chief Justice of India has nominated Supreme Court Judge Justice B.V. Nagarathna as the Chairperson of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) with effect from June 29, 2026. The appointment follows the retirement of Justice J.K. Maheshwari, who previously headed the Committee, and is in accordance with the long-standing convention that the third senior-most judge of the Supreme Court assumes charge of the SCLSC. While the notification may appear to be an administrative appointment, it carries considerable constitutional significance because the Committee functions as the apex institution responsible…

In a landmark judgment that is likely to redefine the relationship between artificial intelligence and the administration of justice in India, the Supreme Court has unequivocally declared that citing AI-generated fake or “hallucinated” judicial precedents without verification constitutes professional misconduct on the part of advocates, while any judicial decision founded upon such fabricated authorities is legally void and incapable of sustaining judicial scrutiny. The ruling marks the first authoritative pronouncement by the apex court laying down a comprehensive institutional framework for the responsible use of artificial intelligence in litigation, while simultaneously drawing a clear constitutional distinction between the legitimate use…

In what may prove to be one of the most consequential judicial pronouncements on the use of artificial intelligence in the Indian legal system, the Supreme Court has set aside the judgments of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) after discovering that the adjudicatory process had relied upon non-existent, AI-generated “hallucinated” judicial precedents. Describing such fabricated authorities as an existential threat to the administration of justice, the Court observed that the use of AI-generated fake judgments is “like the release of methyl isocyanide in the province of law and justice” an invisible…

The Supreme Court has been approached through a Public Interest Litigation seeking the formulation of a comprehensive statutory and regulatory framework governing stand-up comedy, podcasts, live-streaming platforms, social media ecosystems and other forms of user-generated digital content. Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, the petition contends that India’s existing legal architecture has failed to keep pace with the unprecedented speed at which digital platforms amplify information, misinformation and controversial content. Significantly, the plea does not seek criminal prosecution of individual comedians or content creators. Instead, it argues that recent controversies including the widely discussed “Rs.…

In a significant ruling that is likely to shape the evolving jurisprudence on personality rights in India, the Delhi High Court has held that political criticism cannot automatically be converted into a claim for protection of personality rights, even while directing the removal of a limited number of social media posts found to be prima facie obscene, vulgar and defamatory against BJP Rajya Sabha Member Raghav Chadha. The decision underscores the delicate constitutional balance between an individual’s right to reputation under Article 21 and the equally fundamental guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). While granting partial…

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant interim protection to self-styled godman Asaram Bapu against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which recently upheld his conviction and life imprisonment in the 2013 minor rape case. The development effectively leaves intact the High Court’s direction requiring Asaram to surrender and continue serving the sentence imposed by the trial court. While issuing notice on his Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s verdict, the Supreme Court refused to stay either the conviction or the sentence at this preliminary stage, signalling that the findings recorded by the High Court would continue…