Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“There can be no second opinion that preservation of human life is of paramount consideration. This is so on account of the fact that once life is lost, the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of man.”
“Even otherwise, trite law it is in service jurisprudence that a stigmatic order passed on ground of alleged misconduct cannot be sustained unless a proper enquiry in accordance with law has been conducted.”
Since anticipatory bail as well as transit anticipatory bail are intrinsically linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution, it would be necessary to give a constitutional imprimatur to the evolving provision of transit anticipatory bail.
Allahabad High Court directed the State Government to undertake an exercise for admission of the children in reputed schools in the vicinity of the homes.
Supreme Court said that while acting as counsel or advocates or in their capacity as advocates, the advocates cannot undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages. However, in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses, their role as witnesses cannot be ruled out.
“Truth is the soul of justice. The sole idea of the criminal justice system is to see that justice is done. Justice will be said to be done when no innocent person is punished, and the guilty person is not allowed to go scot free.”
Section 41 and 41A of CrPC are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Even if a single individual may be benefitted from the construction of revenue ‘rasta’ at the instance of the Revenue Collector, it is not sufficient and well-informed reason for the Panchayat to resist compliance with orders of the Collector.
Allahabad High Court granted bail to Atikur Rehman who was arrested in 2020 along with Siddique Kappan and two others on their way to meet the family of the Hathras Rape and Murder victim.
Madras High Court permitted Srilankan refugees’ daughter to apply for passport under Section 20 of the Passports Act and directed the Central Government to consider her application and pass order.
Of all the things a system should fear, Complacency heads the list. The case in hand gave us a wake-up call and made us question ourselves as to whether we have become complacent and conditioned while dealing with preventive detention cases. Having got that call from within, we decided to shake up and wriggle out of the complacency and do a reality check.
Supreme Court: In appeal against the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court three-judge bench of Uday Umesh Lalit*, C.J.,
Supreme Court: In a writ petition relating to the issue of implementation of the recommendations of the Justice B.N. Srikrishna commission constituted
Gauhati High Court: Songkhupchung Serto, J. was hearing a writ petition of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertaining
Madras High Court: G.R. Swaminathan, J. while hearing a petition seeking conferment of citizenship, declined to issue mandamus for the same on
Allahabad High Court: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. dismissed the present “PIL” while imposing an exemplary cost on the petitioner for abusing the
National Green Tribunal: A Coram of Justice A.K. Goel (Chairperson), Justice S.P. Wangdi (Judicial Member), Justice K. Ramakrishnan (Judicial Member) and Dr