New Insights

The case of Amrit Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand, captured the attention of legal experts and the public alike. The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Vikram Nath, carefully examined the appeal filed by Amrit Yadav against the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court. This case offers valuable insights into the legal principles applied in criminal appeals and the broader judicial process.

On February 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment in the case of Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., which clarified the legal stance regarding child custody in cases where a father has remarried. This decision emphasized that a father's remarriage, in itself, does not disqualify him from obtaining custody of his minor child. The ruling brought attention to the fact that the child's welfare is the overriding factor in custody disputes and not the marital status of the parent.

Vihaan Kumar was arrested by the Haryana police on June 10, 2024, in connection with allegations of cheating and forgery. He contended that he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, thereby violating his rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the reasons for their arrest and be allowed to consult a legal practitioner of their choice.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of part-time sweepers appointed on a temporary basis to regular sanctioned posts, affirming their entitlement to regular pay as per the conditions of the Madhya Pradesh Government's circular dated 10.05.1984. The Court held that the designation of "part-time" does not invalidate their appointments to sanctioned posts, and the absence of a screening committee, unlike in the Ram Naresh Prajapati case, does not disqualify them from receiving regular pay. It emphasized that completing three years of service in sanctioned posts fulfils the criteria for revised pay scales, thereby reversing the High Court's Division Bench decision and reinstating the Single Bench's ruling in favour of the appellants.