Author: Anvita Dwivedi

The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain a clarification plea concerning its recent observations on euthanasia of stray dogs has intensified an already polarised national debate over the relationship between public safety, animal welfare and the limits of judicial intervention in urban governance. What initially began as proceedings concerning rising dog bite incidents has now evolved into a wider constitutional and ethical conflict involving competing claims of human rights, statutory animal protections and administrative accountability. The controversy arose after the Supreme Court recently observed that rabid, incurably ill and demonstrably dangerous stray dogs could be euthanised in accordance with the Animal…

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the alleged dowry death of Twisha Sharma has transformed what initially appeared to be a tragic matrimonial dispute into a larger constitutional conversation about institutional accountability, media conduct and the integrity of criminal investigations in politically and socially sensitive cases. In an extraordinary development, the apex court has taken suo motu cognisance of the matter, indicated that the investigation may be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and simultaneously cautioned the media and stakeholders against public commentary capable of influencing the probe. The case has rapidly acquired national attention not merely because…

The political atmosphere in Tamil Nadu has heated up significantly following a new legal challenge in the highest court of the country. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court of India, demanding a full-scale investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the recent assembly floor test. The petition alleges that massive corruption, bribery, and political horse-trading took place behind the scenes to help the newly formed government secure its majority. The entire argument circles back to the major assembly vote that took place on May 13, 2026. During this session, the newly appointed…

In a significant ruling on testamentary succession and validity of Wills, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a Will cannot be treated as suspicious merely because the testator chose to exclude natural heirs such as a spouse or children from inheritance. The Court upheld a Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister while excluding his wife and children, observing that Indian succession law recognises the autonomy of an individual to dispose of property according to personal wishes. The judgment is important not only because it clarifies the law relating to suspicious circumstances in probate disputes, but also because it…

In a legally significant and intellectually consequential observation, the Supreme Court has recommended that the Law Commission of India revisit Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to examine whether tortious claims against a deceased wrongdoer should survive and continue against his or her legal heirs. The Court’s remarks reopen a long-standing debate rooted in colonial common law principles, compelling renewed scrutiny of whether Indian civil liability jurisprudence remains compatible with contemporary constitutional notions of fairness, accountability, and victim compensation. The recommendation emerged in a case involving allegations of medical negligence where the doctor accused of negligent conduct died…

In one of the most significant judicial appointment exercises in recent years, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of 19 individuals as judges of the Madras High Court, marking a major institutional intervention aimed at addressing mounting vacancies and crippling judicial pendency in one of India’s oldest constitutional courts. The recommendations, cleared by the Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on May 18, 2026, represent one of the largest single-batch approvals for any High Court in recent memory. The decision arrives at a time when the Indian judiciary continues to struggle under the burden of…

In a significant ruling on the scope of reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, the Supreme Court has revisited the constitutional and statutory limits governing reopening of completed tax assessments under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. The judgment addresses a long-standing tension within Indian tax jurisprudence: how to balance the State’s power to recover escaped revenue with the taxpayer’s right to certainty, finality, and protection against arbitrary reopening of concluded assessments. The Court clarified that reassessment powers cannot be exercised mechanically or on mere suspicion. It reiterated that reopening of assessments requires the Assessing Officer to possess…

In a significant ruling strengthening procedural fairness in landlord-tenant disputes, the Supreme Court has held that a tenant’s defence cannot be mechanically struck off under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure without first examining whether the failure to deposit rent was deliberate or wilful. The judgment is important because it limits automatic penal consequences in eviction proceedings and reaffirms that procedural rules cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats substantive justice. The case arose from eviction proceedings where the tenant’s defence had been struck off on the ground that rent was not deposited within the…

In a historic reality check, the Rajasthan High Court completely shattered the cultural shield protecting Atta-Satta, exposing the custom as nothing more than the systemic trading of young women.  In a sharply worded judgment, a Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal laid bare the dark realities of Atta-Satta. When the High Court condemned Atta-Satta as a “morally and legally bankrupt” institution, it drew an irreversible line between constitutional supremacy and regressive ancestral customs. The practice operates as a direct assault on the foundational pillars of Indian jurisprudence, explicitly converting the girl child into a bargaining instrument…

In a development carrying major constitutional and legal implications, the Supreme Court recently expressed serious reservations about the judgment that denied bail to former student activist Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The Court observed that the earlier two-judge bench ruling appeared to have disregarded the binding precedent laid down by a larger three-judge bench in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which recognised prolonged incarceration and delay in trial as valid constitutional grounds for granting bail even under stringent anti-terror legislation. The observations were made by a Bench…