Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In petitions challenging the premature release of 13 life convicts by the State Government, the Madras High Court held that there is no reason to infer that the State has failed to consider relevant materials or passed the order of premature release for extraneous considerations.
The Karnataka High Court held that merely mentioning an individual’s caste during an altercation with no intention to insult, would not attract the provisions of the SC/ ST Act
The recruitment process to any public post should be conducted in a fair and transparent manner. If the candidates are selected by any criterion other than merit and efficiency, the public authority will suffer for all the times to come. It is in the public interest that the process of selection and appointment should be transparent to make it foolproof from corrupt practices.
When a law-abiding citizen is adopting legal procedure and has gone to the Police Station to lodge a report, but his report has not been taken, then, such a person/s deserves to be protected. When prima facie the offences are not attracting the provisions under the Atrocities Act, there was no question of the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act
The year 2022 has seen formation of multiple Constitution Benches and its hearings, wherein out of pending 498 Constitution Bench matters, 25
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Special Judge convicting the accused under Section 376 of
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed against the order passed by the Collector under Section 98(1) of U.P.
Kerala High Court: In an appeal relating to the grant of anticipatory bail for the commission of offences under Sections
Supreme Court: In three appeals against an order directing separate zone of consideration for promotion of Scheduled Caste (SC)/Scheduled Tribe
Allahabad High Court: Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. in the present case took opportunity to point out a trend that in large number
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi, JJ. while deciding an appeal which was
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ., directs the State Government of Maharashtra, to
Andhra Pradesh High Court: C Praveen Kumar, J. allowed the petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No.294 of 2013 of II
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Hima Kohli, JJ has held that the formulae for fixing the percentage of
Supreme Court: In a case where Rajasthan High Court had granted bail by merely “keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
The Courts ought to be vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party.
“The experience of rape induces trauma and horror for any woman regardless of her social position in the society. But the experiences of assault are different in the case of a woman who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and has a disability because the assault is a result of the interlocking of different relationships of power at play.”
Kerala High Court: N.Nagaresh, J., heard the instant petition against the order of Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificates, whereby the
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Atul Sreedharan, J., addressed the instant contempt petition. The Court while expressing concern over State inaction, stated, “The
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of N. Kirubakaran and B. Pugalendhi, JJ., asked the State Government to file a report in the