Insights

On April 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His Legal Representative, addressing a critical issue regarding the condonation of an inordinate delay in filing a restoration application after a writ petition was dismissed due to non-prosecution. This case has important implications for the application of procedural law in India, specifically with regard to the strict adherence to time limits in judicial proceedings. The Court’s decision also reinforced the legal principle that delays must be justified by more than just the merits of the case.

On 7th April 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a pivotal judgment in the case of Krishna Devi v. Union of India (2025 INSC 24), clarifying an important procedural aspect under the Arbitration Act, 1940 - specifically, the starting point of the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award. This ruling has significant implications for arbitration jurisprudence in India, especially regarding how courts interpret procedural timelines in favor of justice and fairness.

On April 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Act, which received Presidential assent on April 5, 2025, has been a subject of intense debate and legal scrutiny.

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat, granting anticipatory bail to a former IAS officer accused of misusing his official position in land allotment matters. This ruling has not only garnered attention for its implications on anticipatory bail but also raised important questions about the limits of custodial interrogation in cases involving official misconduct. In this blog, we will analyze the key aspects of the judgment, its legal significance, and its potential impact on future cases of a similar nature.

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, ruled in favor of Amresh Shrivastava, a former Tehsildar, setting aside a chargesheet that had been delayed by 14 years. This case raises critical questions about the impact of prolonged delays in departmental proceedings and their legality.

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, which has far-reaching implications for freedom of speech, expression, and the role of the police in protecting constitutional rights. In this case, the court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) filed against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi, who had shared a poem titled "ऐ खून के प्यासे बात सुनो..." (translating to "O Thirsty for Blood, Listen...") on social media. The judgment highlights the delicate balance between free expression and law enforcement and reiterates the importance of safeguarding the fundamental right to dissent in a democratic society.

On March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in a corruption-related case, highlighting its stance on the proper procedural conduct for handling criminal cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The judgment reversed a controversial decision by the Madras High Court that had quashed criminal proceedings against G. Easwaran, a former Assistant Director with the Nagercoil Local Planning Authority. Easwaran had been accused of possessing disproportionate assets, a charge punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

On March 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the matter of Hemant Kumar v. Jai Chand & Anr. The Court dismissed a review petition that sought to challenge its earlier order. The bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, found that there was no error apparent on the face of the previous judgment, thereby upholding the original ruling. This blog delves into the details of the case, the grounds of the review petition, the Court’s reasoning behind dismissing the petition, and its broader implications on legal procedures in India.

The Supreme Court of India delivered an important judgment in the case of Zaffar Hussain Shah vs. Union of India and Ors. The case was an appeal against a decision made by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, addressing legal issues related to Zaffar Hussain Shah’s claims. This judgment has broader implications for the interpretation of constitutional and administrative laws in the region, particularly after the abrogation of Article 370, which provided special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

On February 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India and Others (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 336 of 2018), addressing the constitutional validity and application of arrest provisions under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017 and the Customs Act, 1962.