In a significant ruling reinforcing procedural safeguards and constitutional protections, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to two doctors accused in a narcotics case under the NDPS Act. The decision underscores that failure to provide written grounds of arrest as mandated by law renders the arrest illegal.
In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of natural justice, the Supreme Court of India has held that blacklisting of a contractor is not an automatic consequence of contract termination. The Court emphasized that such a punitive measure requires an independent application of mind, a specific show-cause notice, and strict adherence to procedural fairness. The judgment in M/S A.K.G. CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. V. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. marks an important development in administrative and contract law jurisprudence.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court in CHARUL SHUKLA V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS reiterated a crucial principle in matrimonial litigation unexplained delay in filing criminal complaints can severely undermine the prosecution's case. The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the in-laws, emphasizing the need for timely legal action, especially in cases involving personal and family relationships.
In a significant ruling strengthening India’s pro-arbitration stance, the Supreme Court in NAGARAJ V. MYLANDLA V. PI OPPORTUNITIES FUND-I & ORS. has reaffirmed that foreign arbitral awards cannot be re-challenged in India on grounds already rejected by the seat court. The Court invoked the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel to prevent re-litigation of issues conclusively decided abroad.
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.