Author: Law Files Office

🕊️ Assassination Date: 30 January 1948 Victim: Mahatma Gandhi Assassin: Nathuram Vinayak Godse, a Hindu Mahasabha member 📝 FIR & Investigation FIR Registered: 30 Jan 1948, 5:17 PM Police Station: Tuglak Road P.S. Complainant: Nandlal Mehta Charge Sheet Filed: 27 May 1948 Prosecution Witnesses: 149 👥 Accused Total Accused: 11 Absconding (3): Gangadhar Dandwati Gangadhar Jadhav Suradeo Sharma ⚖️ Charges Invoked IPC: Sections 302, 120B, 109, 114, 115 Explosive Substances Act: Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 Indian Arms Act: Section 19 🏛️ Trial Details Court: Special Court, Red Fort, Delhi Constituted Under: Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947 Trial Began:…

The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, while granting bail to five other co-accused, in cases arising from the February 2020 Delhi riots linked to the CAA protests. They face charges under: Sections 13 & 16–18, UAPA, and Various IPC provisions. Central Question 👉 Has the UAPA bail regime transformed dissent into “terrorism” and custody into punishment, undermining constitutional liberty? How UAPA Evolved Into a Detention Law Originally meant to regulate unlawful associations, UAPA has progressively hardened: Year Expansion 2004 Broad definition of “terrorism” 2008 Section 43D(5) → near-absolute bar on bail 2019 Individuals (not just…

Main Issue Highlighted 👉 Whether being declared a “Proclaimed Offender” operates as an absolute bar to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Earlier Legal Position (Traditional View) For a long time, courts across India followed a rigid and almost mechanical approach: Once an accused was declared a Proclaimed Offender (PO), Anticipatory bail applications were routinely rejected, Merely citing the proclamation order was treated as sufficient ground to deny relief. 🔴 Practical Consequence Courts did not examine the merits of the case. Facts, circumstances, conduct of the accused, or reasons behind proclamation proceedings were largely ignored. The proclamation…

Court & Judge Delhi High CourtJustice Prateek Jalan Key Legal Principle 👉 Alleged intoxication of a pillion rider does not constitute contributory negligence unless a clear causal connection between the intoxication and the accident is established. Brief Facts The claimant was a pillion rider on a motorcycle involved in an accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation but reduced it by 10% on the ground of contributory negligence. The reduction was based solely on a Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) stating that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol. The insurance company challenged the compensation before the High Court.…

Overview The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education, a statutory body exercising quasi-judicial powers, cannot maintain a writ appeal against a judgment that sets aside its own orders. The Court held that such a body cannot be treated as an “aggrieved person” under law. Key Findings Of The Court 1. Quasi-Judicial Authority Not An ‘Aggrieved Person’ A statutory authority performing adjudicatory functions cannot challenge a superior court’s order overturning its decision. The Admission Supervisory Committee exercises powers akin to a civil court under the Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to…

Until now, service exports from India (other than software) have largely remained outside the scope of EDF/SOFTEX filings and detailed FEMA compliances. Even software exporters, though subject to SOFTEX, have generally ensured timely realisation of export proceeds because GST refunds are directly linked to such realisations. Failure to realise export proceeds within the prescribed time exposes exporters to GST liability along with interest under Rule 96A of the CGST Rules. What Is Changing Under The New FEMA Framework 1. Shift From Relaxed Oversight To Structured Compliance The new FEMA compliance framework signals a move towards closer monitoring of service exports.…

Context The Government of India has initiated a reassessment of the Copyright Act, 1957 to address challenges posed by Generative AI (GenAI) and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). In this backdrop, the DPIIT working paper proposes a hybrid licensing framework for AI training and addresses copyrightability of AI-generated content. While the effort is timely, the proposed framework suffers from serious conceptual, legal, and institutional flaws that risk undermining creator rights, privacy, and transparency. Key Problems In The Proposed Framework 1. Blanket Licence Without Opt-Out: A Threat To Consent & Privacy The proposal introduces a mandatory blanket licence for AI training, without…

Key Ruling The Gauhati High Court has held that mere non-disclosure of the Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) method in a tender document does not, by itself, establish malafides, favouritism or corruption. Court’s Core Findings Allegations of malafides cannot be sustained where the decision to adopt QCBS was taken well before issuance of the tender, at a time when the identity of bidders was unknown. Non-disclosure amounts to a procedural irregularity, not an illegality warranting cancellation of the contract. Judicial review in tender matters is limited, especially after work has commenced. Bench Observation A Division Bench of Chief Justice…

Key Ruling The Bombay High Court has held that the powers of the Charity Commissioner under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act are meant for administrative supervision and cannot be exercised for “moral correction” or public shaming. Background Of The Case The case arose after parents accused a Nashik-based school of “cheating” by allegedly misrepresenting certain aspects of its functioning. Acting on these complaints, the Charity Commissioner passed an order directing the school to: Issue a public apology Publish the apology in two widely circulated newspapers High Court’s Observation A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court observed…

Key Ruling The Allahabad High Court has issued a stern warning to senior police officials in Uttar Pradesh, cautioning that Superintendents of Police (SPs), Senior Superintendents of Police (SSPs), and Police Commissioners will be personally liable for contempt of court if Supreme Court guidelines on police encounters are violated. Court’s Directions A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Deshwal laid down six mandatory guidelines to be followed in cases where an accused suffers grievous injuries during police encounters. The Court made it clear that strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra is non-negotiable. Personal Liability…