Author: Anvita Dwivedi

In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional morality in public discourse, the Supreme Court of India has underscored that public figures must exercise heightened responsibility in their speech, observing that “words have consequences” in a plural and diverse society like India. The Court’s remarks came in the context of proceedings concerning alleged hate speech, where it emphasised that positions of influence carry a corresponding duty of restraint. The Court’s observation is not merely rhetorical but rooted in constitutional doctrine. India’s guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) has never been absolute; it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including…

The Supreme Court’s latest direction in the ongoing Manipur violence litigation seeking a “first-generation” copy of an alleged audio recording implicating former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh marks a decisive shift toward evidentiary rigor in one of the most politically sensitive cases arising from the ethnic conflict in the State. The order, requiring the whistleblower to furnish original audio material for forensic examination, underscores the Court’s insistence on authenticity before any legal or constitutional conclusions are drawn. At the core of the controversy lies an audio recording that allegedly captures conversations suggesting the involvement of political leadership in the 2023…

In a development that foregrounds the continuing tension between police authority and personal liberty, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered an inquiry into allegations of illegal detention of three individuals in connection with a controversial “fake letter” purportedly linked to Vasundhara Raje. The case, arising from a habeas corpus petition, underscores the judiciary’s enduring role as a constitutional sentinel against arbitrary state action. The controversy stems from the circulation of a purported letter attributed to Raje, which allegedly triggered police action against three individuals. According to the petitioners, the men were detained for nearly two days without being produced…

The Calcutta High Court has once again found itself at the centre of electoral governance debates, as it heard a challenge to the deployment of only central government and public sector undertaking (PSU) employees as counting supervisors in the ongoing West Bengal Assembly elections, 2026. The controversy, though administrative in appearance, raises deeper constitutional questions about electoral neutrality, federal balance, and institutional trust in the conduct of elections. The plea before the Court challenges a recent directive issued by the Chief Electoral Officer mandating that at least one counting supervisor at each table must be drawn exclusively from central government…

A significant constitutional question concerning minority reservations has resurfaced before the Bombay High Court, where the State of Maharashtra has taken a firm stand that the 5% Muslim reservation introduced in 2014 was never “scrapped” in law, but had in fact lapsed the very same year. This position, articulated through an affidavit in response to a writ petition, reframes the legal controversy from one of executive withdrawal to one of statutory non-existence. At the centre of the dispute lies a 2026 Government Resolution (GR) challenged by a petitioner who alleges that the State arbitrarily abolished a constitutionally valid reservation benefiting…

In a notable administrative decision with significant implications for the legal profession, the Supreme Court of India has announced that the Advocates-on-Record (AoR) Examination will not be conducted in 2026, with the next cycle tentatively scheduled for 2027. This departure from the Court’s established annual examination practice signals a rare moment of institutional recalibration within one of the most exclusive entry points to Supreme Court practice. The decision, communicated through a notification issued by the Registrar and Secretary of the Board of Examiners, rests on a pragmatic consideration the “overall strength” of existing Advocates-on-Record. As of April 2026, the Court…

The Delhi High Court’s recent intervention in the plea filed by digital creator Bhuvan Bam marks another significant step in India’s evolving jurisprudence on personality rights in the era of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology. The case, arising from the unauthorised circulation of manipulated content using Bam’s likeness, situates itself within a broader judicial trend increasingly attentive to the intersection of technology, identity, and legal protection. At the heart of the dispute lies the unauthorised use of Bam’s name, image, and persona across digital platforms often through AI-generated or morphed content capable of misleading viewers. The Court, recognising the prima…

In a significant clarification of arbitral procedure and judicial intervention, the Supreme Court of India has held that a jurisdictional objection rejected by an arbitral tribunal cannot be independently challenged under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The ruling reinforces the principle of minimal judicial interference and strengthens the finality of arbitral processes within India’s pro-arbitration framework. The decision arose in a dispute where a party sought to challenge the arbitral tribunal’s rejection of its jurisdictional objection as a standalone issue, without waiting for the final award. The Court rejected this approach, holding that such…

In a significant clarification of insolvency jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional (RP) during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) does not amount to an acknowledgment of debt for the purposes of limitation. The ruling settles an important legal ambiguity that had led to conflicting interpretations across tribunals, particularly on whether such admission could extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The case arose in the context of creditors seeking to rely on the inclusion of their claims in CIRP proceedings as a fresh acknowledgment of…

In a sharp and unusually candid rebuke, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court in a dowry death case, questioning the reasoning adopted and remarking, “What’s wrong with the High Court?” The observation underscores growing judicial concern over the manner in which bail discretion is exercised in cases involving grave offences against women, particularly where statutory presumptions and evidentiary thresholds demand heightened scrutiny. The case arose from allegations of dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, where the accused had been granted bail by the High Court.…