Author: Anvita Dwivedi
In a high-stakes constitutional confrontation between a central investigative agency and a state government, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday commenced hearing the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition against the State of West Bengal and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over alleged interference in searches conducted at the offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC. The matter, which has rapidly escalated into a major federal and political flashpoint, is being heard by a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice N. V. Anjaria. The Court has already indicated the seriousness of the issue, refusing to defer proceedings and underscoring that litigants cannot…
In a significant ruling strengthening customer rights in banking transactions, the Supreme Court of India has held that banks are strictly bound to follow the explicit instructions of their customers and cannot unilaterally divert funds, even under regulatory or procedural considerations. The judgment came in Canara Bank Overseas Branch v. Archean Industries Pvt. Ltd., where a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed appeals filed by the bank and affirmed its liability for a wrongful remittance of USD 100,000 to an unintended third party. The dispute arose from a commercial transaction involving Archean Industries Pvt. Ltd., which…
In a significant reaffirmation of victim-centric compensation principles, the Supreme Court of India has held that amounts received under employer-provided group insurance schemes cannot be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The ruling came in a batch of appeals led by The Managing Director, KSRTC v. P. Chandramouli & Ors., where the Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s approach and dismissed challenges seeking deduction of such benefits from the final compensation payable to victims’ families. The central legal question before the Court was whether financial benefits received by dependents from employer-provided group insurance or similar schemes…
In a significant ruling impacting property rights and procedural fairness in Jammu & Kashmir, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that “surrender of possession” under the migrant property law includes not just actual physical possession, but also constructive and symbolic possession. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, interprets proviso (b) to Section 7 of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 in a manner that preserves the statutory right of appeal and prevents the provision from becoming…
In a significant development that could reshape India’s labour and social welfare jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has urged the Union Government to introduce a legal framework recognizing paternity leave as a social security benefit, signalling a shift towards a more gender-neutral understanding of parenting and caregiving. The observation came from a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, while deciding a case concerning maternity benefits for adoptive mothers under the Code on Social Security, 2020. In the same judgment, the Court declared unconstitutional a provision that restricted maternity leave for adoptive mothers only where the adopted…
In a significant ruling reinforcing consumer protection in the insurance sector, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi, has held Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service for wrongfully denying a mediclaim reimbursement to a policyholder. The Commission ruled that the insurer had failed to establish that the medical treatment fell within the policy’s exclusion clause, thereby rendering the repudiation unjustified. The decision was delivered by a bench comprising S.S. Malhotra (President) and Ravi Kumar (Member), which allowed the complaint and directed the insurer to honour the claim after finding the repudiation legally unsustainable.…
The long-standing constitutional dispute over women’s entry into the hill shrine of Sabarimala Temple has once again reached the centre of judicial scrutiny, with Hamid Dabholkar, son of slain rationalist Narendra Dabholkar, approaching the Supreme Court of India seeking permission to intervene in the ongoing review proceedings. In his intervention plea, Hamid Dabholkar along with social activist Nandini Jadhav has strongly defended the Court’s landmark 2018 verdict that permitted women of all age groups to enter the temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. The applicants contend that the traditional prohibition on women between the ages of 10 and 50 amounts to…
The Supreme Court of India has indicated its reluctance to intervene in matters relating to the structure of legal education while hearing a public interest litigation seeking to reduce the duration of the five-year integrated LL.B programme to four years. The Court observed that such policy decisions fall primarily within the domain of academic and regulatory bodies rather than judicial determination. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observations while considering a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which calls for comprehensive reforms in legal education, including a review of the duration…
In a significant development highlighting the intersection of criminal law, state sanction, and freedom of expression, the Government of Haryana has informed the Supreme Court of India that it will not grant sanction to prosecute Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a faculty member at Ashoka University, in connection with criminal cases registered over his social media remarks on “Operation Sindoor.” A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi recorded the State’s submission and consequently brought an end to the criminal proceedings arising from the controversy. The decision came after the Court had earlier indicated that the State…
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday heard review petitions challenging its earlier decision mandating three years of legal practice as a prerequisite for entry into judicial service. During the hearing, Justice K. Vinod Chandran remarked that much of the opposition to the rule appears to be influenced by the growing ecosystem of coaching centres that prepare candidates for judicial examinations. The observation was made by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, also comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, while hearing review petitions against the Court’s May 2025 judgment restoring the three-year practice…