Insights
The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step towards ensuring timely adjudication of disputes arising out of State Bar Council elections by constituting two additional Election Tribunals. The decision came in the matter of SAVITA DEVI @ SAVITA DHANDA AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. a case that raised important concerns regarding transparency, electoral procedures, reservation policies, and delays in resolving disputes connected with Bar Council elections conducted across various states. The order was passed by a Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Recognizing the growing number of election-related litigations and the necessity of expeditious disposal, the Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to formally notify the newly constituted tribunals within three days after obtaining consent from the appointed members.
In today’s complex commercial environment, businesses increasingly seek dispute resolution mechanisms that are efficient, confidential and commercially pragmatic. Arbitration has emerged as the preferred method for resolving domestic and international commercial disputes, offering parties a private adjudicatory process that combines procedural flexibility with legally binding outcomes. For corporations, investors, financial institutions and multinational enterprises, arbitration provides a strategic alternative to traditional litigation and plays a critical role in preserving commercial relationships while ensuring enforceability of contractual rights.
In a significant ruling concerning landlord-tenant disputes, the Supreme Court in Dharmendra Kalra & Ors. v. Kulvinder Singh Bhatia clarified that a tenant’s defence cannot be struck off mechanically under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without first determining whether the default in depositing rent was wilful or bona fide. The judgment is important because courts across India frequently deal with eviction suits where landlords seek striking off the tenant’s defence on the ground of delayed or non-payment of rent. The Supreme Court emphasized that such power, though available to courts, must be exercised cautiously and only after satisfying certain foundational requirements. A bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Prasanna B. Varale delivered the ruling.
In a significant judgment impacting India’s energy sector and the interpretation of indirect tax laws, the Supreme Court of India has held that the supply of natural gas from the KG-D6 basin in Andhra Pradesh to buyers in Uttar Pradesh constitutes an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). Consequently, the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot impose Value Added Tax (VAT) on such transactions. The decision came in the case of:
The independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has once again come under intense judicial scrutiny. In a significant hearing before the Supreme Court, serious constitutional concerns were raised regarding the composition of the selection committee responsible for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The matter, titled Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, has become one of the most important constitutional cases concerning electoral democracy and institutional independence in recent years. The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma examined whether the 2023 legislation undermines the constitutional requirement of maintaining an independent Election Commission by allowing the executive to dominate the appointment process.
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment strengthening the principles of criminal jurisprudence and fair trial, has ruled that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be selectively used only for convicting an accused person. Such testimony can equally be relied upon to discredit the prosecution case and support acquittal when it appears credible and trustworthy. In the case of Talari Naresh v. State of Telangana, a Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria acquitted the appellant who had earlier been convicted for murder and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In a landmark judgment reaffirming constitutional values of equality and dignity within marriage, the Supreme Court of India recently held that a wife’s decision to pursue her professional ambitions cannot be treated as matrimonial cruelty merely because it may hurt the sentiments of the husband or his family. The decision came in the case of Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt, where the Court strongly criticized the “archaic” and “feudalistic” mindset that expects women to sacrifice their careers and individuality after marriage.
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment concerning the delicate relationship between the judiciary and the legal fraternity, recently closed the contempt proceedings initiated against senior advocate Yatin Narendra Oza while simultaneously emphasizing the indispensable need for mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar. In YATIN NARENDRA OZA V. SUO MOTU, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANR., the Court observed that the judiciary and the legal profession are “two wheels of the chariot of justice,” and any friction between them has the potential to weaken public confidence in the justice delivery system itself.
