Insights
Reaffirming the limited and exceptional nature of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973, the Supreme Court of India on 4th December has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court that had refused to summon a deceased woman’s in-laws as additional accused in a murder trial.
India’s judicial system stands on the brink of what Justice Manmohan of the Supreme Court of India calls the “fourth industrial revolution.” Speaking at two recent high-level events in Delhi including a conference on Transforming Justice Delivery with AI & Technology and the International Legal Conference 2025. Justice Manmohan highlighted both the transformative opportunities and urgent challenges that emerging technologies present for the judiciary. Far from replacing judges with machines, he stressed, the purpose of integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) is to augment human decision making, accelerate justice delivery, and strengthen constitutional values not weaken them.
In a landmark pronouncement on Wednesday, the Supreme Court aimed at strengthening the financial and constitutional rights of Muslim women, held that a divorced Muslim woman is legally entitled to recover all properties including cash, gold ornaments, and other articles given to her or even given to her husband at the time of marriage. This decision, delivered in ROUSANARA BEGUM V. S.K. SALAHUDDIN, marks a crucial reaffirmation of the protective framework under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (“1986 Act”), and further underscores the obligation of courts to interpret personal laws in a manner consistent with constitutional values of equality, dignity, and autonomy.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) against an order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) that upheld a ₹30 lakh penalty imposed on two of its compliance officers for failing to make timely disclosures related to the Facebook-Reliance Jio deal. (RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. SEBI) A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held, "The issue dealt with by SEBI and SAT are substantially a question of fact, giving rise to no substantial question of law to be considered by court."
In a significant reaffirmation of settled principles governing attachment before judgment, the Supreme Court on 28th November, 2025 has held that a property validly transferred through a registered sale deed prior to the institution of a suit cannot be subjected to attachment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
For Account Payee Cheque’s Dishonour, Complaint Must Be Filed Only at Payee’s Home Branch: Section 142(2)(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act Case Title: Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s HEG Ltd. Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan Date: 28 November 2024 “A deeming fiction is created under Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act, that the cheques deposited anywhere are deemed delivered at the home branch, the court said.”
A series of petitions filed before the Supreme Court of India has brought the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls under sharp judicial scrutiny. The petitioners including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), RJD MP Manoj Jha, and several civil society actors contend that the ECI’s present SIR mechanism exceeds its statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act), and undermines established constitutional safeguards.
In a powerful judgment that strengthens patient rights and elevates healthcare accountability in Kerala, the Kerala High Court on 26 November dismissed appeals filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the Kerala Private Hospitals Association. The Court upheld the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018 and its Rules—legislation that has been gradually implemented since 2019. A Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. ruled that the Act is neither vague nor arbitrary, rejecting industry concerns and affirming the State’s authority to regulate healthcare establishments in the interest of public welfare.
