The Indian Supreme Court has issued a strong warning against the misuse of cruelty laws in marital disputes, citing a rise in cases where women leverage Section 498A (now Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) for personal vendetta. The court emphasized the law’s intended purpose and highlighted the need to prevent its exploitation.
In an address to the Oxford Union Society, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud highlighted the role of judges in safeguarding constitutional principles and the humanizing influence they can have through adjudication. While acknowledging some criticism faced by judges on social media, the Chief Justice emphasized the overall positive impact of technology in enhancing transparency within the judicial system. He also addressed the Special Marriage Act judgment on same-sex marriage, expressing his support for civil unions while respecting the court’s decision. Furthermore, the Chief Justice discussed the complexities of judicial decision-making, noting the importance of understanding the potential impact on society and the need for a balanced approach to technology in the legal system.
The Supreme Court of India has rejected Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s request for a seven-day extension of his interim bail in a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy. Kejriwal sought an extension due to medical reasons, but the court refused, stating that he was granted liberty to approach the trial court for regular bail. The court also questioned why the medical condition was not mentioned during an earlier hearing.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot arrest an accused under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) once the Special Court has taken cognizance of the complaint. The ED must instead apply to the court for custody if it seeks to detain the accused.
The Supreme Court of India has ordered the release of NewsClick founder and editor Prabir Purkayastha, who was arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The apex court held that Purkayastha’s arrest and remand were illegal. The Delhi Police had arrested Purkayastha in a case under the UAPA, alleging that NewsClick received foreign funds in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) subsequently filed a case against NewsClick for breaching the FCRA.
The Supreme Court of India reprimanded the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and its President, Dr. RV Asokan, for giving an interview to the press about the Court’s orders in the Patanjali misleading advertisement case. The Court stated that Asokan’s actions resembled those of Patanjali, criticizing him for lacking self-restraint. Patanjali had filed an application against Asokan, seeking judicial notice of his “wanton and unwarranted comments”. The Court also reserved its order in a contempt of court case against Patanjali Ayurved, yoga guru Baba Ramdev, and Acharya Balkrishna.
The Supreme Court of India (SC) has reserved its order on a contempt plea against Baba Ramdev, Acharya Balkrishna, and others in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case.
The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal till June 1 in a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy. Kejriwal, who had been in jail since March 21, was ordered to surrender on June 2. The court’s decision was welcomed by opposition parties that are seeking to challenge the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party in the ongoing Lok Sabha election.
The Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra case before the Supreme Court of India raises pivotal questions regarding the scope of fundamental rights and the role of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) in lawmaking. The case seeks to define the term “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution and determine whether laws enacted to secure these resources are immune from challenges based on equality and freedom rights. The tension between DPSPs and fundamental rights has been a contentious issue in Indian constitutional history, with the balance between them shifting over time. Article 31C, introduced in 1971, initially granted immunity to certain laws from judicial review on grounds of Article 14 (equality) and Article 19 (freedoms), but its scope has been contested and remains subject to interpretation. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for the future of the Constitution and the relationship between rights and governance in India.
The Supreme Court of India has extended the constitutional rights to life and equality to include the right to be free from the negative effects of climate change. This landmark judgment has the potential to create positive change, but it also contains some flaws that could undermine its impact. The Court’s focus on mega-solar and wind energy projects without considering the negative impacts they can have on the environment and local communities is a major concern. Additionally, the Court’s failure to address the potential of alternative energy sources and demand management strategies is a missed opportunity. Despite these flaws, the judgment has the potential to be a positive step towards climate justice in India if the Court takes further steps to address these concerns.
