Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court held that an unnatural death in police custody, including death by suicide, constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and attracts the State’s public law liability to compensate the victim’s family.
This Court viewed that the balance of convenience and equities, in the present case, overwhelmingly lie in favour of permitting the proposed liver donation and transplantation. In case such permission is denied, it may lead to loss of life of the petitioner’s father.
Delhi High Court dismissed challenges to the Indian Dressage Team selection for the 2026 Asian Games, holding that the EFI followed the prescribed Selection Criteria and reiterating the limited scope of judicial review in sports selections.
Bringing together the month’s significant service law developments from Supreme Court and High Court decisions on appointment, recruitment, eligibility, jurisdiction, employment regulation, and resignation.
Armed Forces Tribunal refused to grant interim relief permitting the petitioners, SSC Medical Officers, to apply for and appear in the NEET PG Examination, 2026 on a priority basis.
“The issue is not related to the ‘title of the property’ but for the claim of fundamental right of worship or prayer and if the ‘disputed area’ is held to be a ‘protected monument’ under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the bar under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 would not apply.”
“Every order issued by the Princely Ruler survives as law only when it goes through the test as prescribed under the Constitution, thus, the Ailan of 1935 was merely an executive or administrative arrangement and not a legislative enactment and the ASI report establishes a pre-existing temple structure, whose remains form the base of the present monument.”
Delhi High Court ruled that the mandatory 30-day notice period under the Special Marriage Act cannot be relaxed merely because one of the parties is required to join employment abroad, emphasising that courts cannot bypass express statutory requirements.
“The religious character of the “disputed area” of Bhojshala Complex and Kamal Maula Mosque was held to be a Temple of Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati) in the light of provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.”
Reiterating the distinction between territorial jurisdiction and forum convenience, the Supreme Court held that once jurisdiction is validly attracted under Article 226(1) by the presence of necessary respondent authorities within a High Court’s territorial limits, the doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot be routinely invoked to decline adjudication.
The Court held that welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration, but such welfare must be assessed after considering all relevant facts and circumstances rather than through a summary determination based on affidavits.
The Court held that date of birth dispute must first be resolved under Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 before seeking correction in CBSE records.
Cheq Digital’s writ petition challenging DGGI’s provisional attachment of its bank accounts under Form GST DRC-22 was disposed of as infructuous after DGGI itself withdrew the attachment order during pendency, with ICICI Bank undertaking to implement the withdrawal forthwith.
“The cryptic judgment of the Tribunal appears to be perverse and requires a thorough and elaborate discussion by dealing with the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner.”
“Doctrine of Comity of Courts is important but not absolute, and welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.”
“It is well settled that, in case of conflict between form and substance, substance must prevail, unless the law expressly mandates strict adherence to the form as well.”
“The respondents are directed to conduct enquiry independently in this regard and ensure that no injustice is caused to the petitioner by violating her fundamental rights as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“The right to protest is protected, however, the right to insist upon a particular public junction for an indefinite recurring protest is not.”
“Justice is administered strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of legally admissible material placed on record, and not on emotional considerations or theatrical conduct in the Courtroom.”
“It is open to the petitioner to challenge the orders of the OHRC and of the State Information Commissioner and avail any alternate remedy available to him under the law.”