Insights
The ongoing constitutional debate surrounding religious freedom in India has taken a significant turn in the Sabarimala reference case, with All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) urging the Supreme Court of India to refrain from determining what constitutes “essential religious practices” (ERP).
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court in SHARADA SANGHI & ORS. VS. ASHA AGARWAL & ORS. has drawn a nuanced distinction between the doctrine of res judicata and the equitable consequences of litigant conduct. While reaffirming that dismissal of a suit for default does not amount to res judicata, the Court emphasized that a party who repeatedly abandons proceedings may still be denied relief for abuse of process.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukum Chand alias Monu has once again underscored the mandatory nature of protecting the identity of rape victims, while also clarifying the evidentiary standards in sexual offence cases. The judgment not only restores the conviction of the accused but also addresses systemic lapses in judicial records where victims’ identities continue to be disclosed despite clear statutory prohibitions.
In a significant ruling under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Supreme Court in CENTRAL TRANSMISSION UTILITY OF INDIA LIMITED V. SUMIT BINANI & ORS. has reaffirmed the sanctity of the moratorium imposed under Section 14. The Court categorically held that a creditor cannot appropriate pre-CIRP dues from a security deposit after the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
In a significant step towards strengthening the rights of persons with disabilities (PwDs), the Supreme Court of India recently emphasized the urgent need for making cab services accessible and inclusive. The observation came while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in SHIVJEET SINGH RAGHAW V. UNION OF INDIA & ANR., which raises critical concerns about mobility barriers faced by PwDs in India.
In a significant ruling that balances environmental concerns with urban development, the Supreme Court in NAVEEN SOLANKI & ANR. V. RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. has clarified that the mere growth of trees or vegetation on land earmarked for development does not automatically render it a “deemed forest.” The judgment reinforces the primacy of statutory planning frameworks such as Master Plans and limits the expansive interpretation of forest land under environmental jurisprudence.
In a significant ruling in V. GANESAN V. STATE, the Supreme Court of India has drawn a crucial distinction between civil liability arising from commercial transactions and criminal liability for cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In a significant ruling reinforcing the fiduciary responsibility of banks, the Supreme Court in CANARA BANK OVERSEAS BRANCH V. ARCHEAN INDUSTRIES PVT LTD held that banks are strictly bound by customer instructions and cannot unilaterally divert funds. The Court upheld the liability of Canara Bank for wrongly remitting USD 100,000 to a third party, emphasizing accountability in banking operations and adherence to mandate.
