Author: Anvita Dwivedi
The Delhi High Court has issued summons to political commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and several media and digital platforms in a civil suit instituted by Saurav Das, spokesperson of the Cockroach Janta Party, alleging unlawful disclosure and dissemination of his residential address and other private information. Justice Sachin Datta also issued notice on Das’s application seeking interim protection and directed the matter to be placed for further consideration. During the hearing, the Court was informed that posts on X containing the alleged residential details had already been removed from the platform. The immediate proceedings therefore bring into sharp focus a contemporary…
The Delhi High Court has directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to reconsider the exclusion of MD Geriatric Medicine from the list of feeder qualifications for DM super-speciality courses, holding that the reasons relied upon by the medical authorities were insufficient to prevent qualified doctors from pursuing higher specialisation. Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with a petition filed by doctors holding postgraduate qualifications in Geriatric Medicine who challenged their exclusion from eligibility for medicine-related DM courses conducted through the NEET-SS and INI-SS pathways. The Court’s intervention raises a larger question concerning the limits of regulatory discretion in professional education: while…
The Bombay High Court has delivered an important ruling on the architecture of appellate remedies under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, holding that an employer cannot constitute an appellate authority of its own choice to reconsider the findings of an Internal Committee. A Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale held that Section 18 of the POSH Act, read with Rule 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Rules, 2013, does not confer any jurisdiction upon an employer to create or constitute an internal appellate…
In a judgment that resonates far beyond the confines of motor accident compensation law, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed one of the most profound constitutional truths of family life: the care, affection and emotional labour of a mother cannot be reduced to a monetary calculation. While adjudicating a claim arising from the death of a homemaker in a motor vehicle accident, the Court held that compensation must recognise not merely the economic value of unpaid domestic work but also the irreplaceable role played by a mother in nurturing, educating and emotionally supporting her children. The ruling marks another significant step…
The Supreme Court has substantially modified the framework governing entry-level judicial recruitment by reducing the mandatory period of prior legal practice for candidates seeking direct appointment as Civil Judges (Junior Division) from three years to one year, while simultaneously introducing a structured two-year experiential programme comprising intensive judicial training and supervised law clerkship. The decision, delivered by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, who recorded a dissent, does not amount to a complete retreat from the Court’s 2025 decision restoring the three-year practice requirement. Instead, the Court has…
The Supreme Court has substantially altered the immediate operation of its controversial three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial service, allowing law graduates to apply for Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations notified between May 20, 2025 and March 31, 2027, notwithstanding the absence of three years of prior practice at the Bar. The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, who delivered a dissenting opinion, has fashioned a transitional arrangement under which candidates applying during this limited period will be deemed to have completed one year of active practice. Those selected…
The Supreme Court has granted bail to Sudipta Sen, a key figure associated with the Saradha Group chit-fund scandal, after taking note of the extraordinary length of his incarceration and the overall circumstances of the criminal proceedings pending against him. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered that Sen be released on bail on terms to be fixed by the trial court, noting that he has remained in custody since December 30, 2016. The order is significant not because it determines Sen’s innocence or examines the merits of the allegations against him, but because it…
The Supreme Court has ruled that an insurer cannot be held liable for a loss occurring after the insured turnover has already exceeded the sum insured under a Marine Cargo Annual Turnover Policy, where the additional premium necessary to extend the risk had not been paid in advance. In a significant judgment concerning the relationship between insurance coverage, premium payment and the authority of an insurer’s agents, a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed appeals filed by The New India Assurance Company Limited and set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s direction requiring the…
The Supreme Court has declined to replace hanging as the statutory method of executing a death sentence, holding that the material placed before it does not establish that lethal injection is demonstrably more humane, painless or reliable. A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the challenge brought by senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, but the judgment is more nuanced than a simple reaffirmation of hanging. The Court did not hold that hanging is scientifically established to be the most humane method of execution. Instead, it found that the petitioner had failed to place before the Court sufficiently…
The Supreme Court has upheld the discharge of several constables recruited to the Railway Protection Force and Railway Protection Special Force after they failed to disclose pending criminal cases during the recruitment process, holding that under the applicable Railway Protection Force Rules, suppression of such material information can justify discharge even if the suppression is discovered after the recruitment process has substantially progressed. A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the connected appeals in Bappa Barai v. Union of India & Ors., holding that a candidate entering a disciplined force is under a clear obligation…