Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in its recent judgement pronounced that Mere Application of Filthy language without any context that suggests an intent to offend modesty doesn't fall under S.506 IPC. The Supreme bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra were considering an appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision. The High Court had […]

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan strongly criticized the appointment of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors in High Courts based on political considerations rather than merit. The Court emphasized that favouritism and nepotism should not dictate these appointments and that the State Government owes a duty to ascertain the

The plea of a son of a Christian Pastor from Chhattisgarh, seeking to bury his father either in their native village of Chindwara or on their private agricultural land remained inconclusive with the Supreme Court giving a split verdict on the plea on 27th January, 2025. The bench, of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish

SC: Disapproval of Marriage and Remarks to Lover Son's To End Life If She Can't Live Without Him Not Grounds for Abetment of Suicide The Supreme Court has provided relief by quashing a criminal case for the offence of abetment to suicide against a mother who expressed disapproval of her son’s marriage and allegedly told

In a significant judgment delivered on January 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India reinforced the legal sanctity of oral statements made by counsels on behalf of parties in constitutional courts. A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan unequivocally held that an order cannot be subjected to review solely on the

The Supreme Court on January 20, 2025 witnessed a heated exchange between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Indira Jaising regarding the procedure for senior advocate designations. The dispute arose when Mr. Mehta sought changes to the current system, which had been established by a three-judge Bench in 2017. However, he had not filed

The Supreme Court came down heavily on a Petitioner by imposing a cost of ₹100,000 for wasting time of the Supreme Court and the High Court by going on a frivolous litigation spree for 15 years through multiple meritless petitions, review petitions, appeals, and motions all stemming from his grievance for removal from service. Issuing

The Supreme Court reiterated the discretionary power conferred upon courts under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), empowering them to summon any person named in a First Information Report (FIR) but not implicated in the chargesheet as an additional accused to face trial, provided that, during the trial, evidence surfaces against the

"Seized vehicle is not liable to confiscation if the owner of the seized vehicle can prove that the vehicle was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use of the seized vehicle by the accused person." Observed the bench of Justice

On 20th January, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan will deliberate whether an Advocate on Record (AoR) bears the obligation to inform their client about their designation as a Senior Advocate, thereby enabling the client to make alternative arrangements to engage another lawyer for filing a vakalatnama. The Court