Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court clarified that the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 shall be strictly followed. No live-in partner or relative should be arrested without the mandated preliminary safeguards.
Supreme Court released the “Handbook on Judgments and Gender (Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments)” highlighting the need for empathetic, inclusive and stereotype-free judicial language. The Handbook provides guidance on avoiding gendered expressions, adopting survivor-centric terminology and promoting trauma-informed adjudication to ensure dignity and fairness in the justice process.
The Court noted that the respondent was dragged unnecessarily to the High Court by a review prompted by the office of the Chief Minister. The State ought to have accepted the High Court’s interference with a “patently illegal and blatantly tainted” sanction order.
Supreme Court awarded ₹15 lakhs compensation to the widow of a man who died after a stray bull attack, holding that relegating the claimants to a civil suit after nearly 2 decades would leave them “remediless”.
The Supreme Court said that there cannot be a presumption in law that, after marriage, a daughter severs her ties with her parental family and resides with husband in her matrimonial home and that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is, per se, unconstitutional
The July Criminal Law Roundup highlights important decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts on prisoners’ rights, bail, juvenile justice, POCSO, custodial deaths, investigation, sentencing, quashment proceedings, and notable legislative developments in criminal law.
The Court observed that environmental adjudication requires reconciling 2 competing constitutional aspirations, the fundamental right of present and future generations to live in a pollution-free environment and the developmental aspirations of a nation comprising nearly one-sixth of humanity.
Supreme Court held that the existing judicial framework, including e-filing, virtual hearings and urgent listing mechanisms, adequately ensures round-the-clock access to constitutional remedies in cases involving imminent threats to life, liberty and other fundamental rights.
The Court held that the moratorium under Section 14 IBC protects only the corporate debtor and does not bar consumer proceedings against promoters, directors, landowners or other non-corporate debtor respondents.
The Court stated that National Commission for Scheduled Castes has powers to requisition documents and receive evidence, but it does not have the power to make an order in furtherance of that evidence.
The Court dismissed a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s order appointing a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court upheld the view that an exclusive jurisdiction clause, in the context of arbitration proceedings, can be construed as indicative of the seat of arbitration.
The Court directed that all CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records, and PCR lodge collections related to the students’ protest be preserved.
The Court modified the impugned condition and directed that an advocate would be permitted to remain at a place from where he could see the respondent but would not be permitted to intervene in the investigation “at any cost”.
The Court held that although the expression “arising out of” receives a broad interpretation and compensation proceedings are governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, the existence of some link whatsoever between the car, and the death had to be established.
The Court observed that although bail is the rule and jail the exception, and every accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the present case stood on a different footing as the earlier orders rejecting the respondent’s bail on merits had attained finality and the trial had already commenced.
The Court directed that directions issued in Rohit Anand Das v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4535, regarding modification of the APAAR consent form should operate on a pan-India basis.
The Supreme Court while quashing criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against a litigant and his counsel held that “wrong statement” is not the same as a “false statement”. The Court reiterated that prosecution can be initiated only where a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood exists and the Court records that such action is expedient in the interests of justice.
The Court held that while conducting preliminary assessment, Juvenile Justice Board was not bound by any opinion or recommendation and must independently apply its mind to all the material available to it, including Social Background Report, Social Investigation Report, witness statements, interaction with the child and every other relevant circumstance.
The Court sets aside the order which treated Section 66 as a non-bailable offence while ignoring Section 77-B
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association issued a statement condemning the use of force against students and young protestors who had assembled to peacefully voice their grievances regarding public examinations.