LawLoveLegal

I. INTRODUCTION: PENAL LIABILITY FOR DELAY UNDER A SOCIAL WELFARE STATUTE The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India clarifies a crucial issue under the Employees' Compensation Act (formerly the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923): who bears the liability to pay penalty for delay in depositing compensation — the employer or the insurer? A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale held that the statutory obligation to pay compensation within the prescribed period rests squarely upon the employer. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 4A for delay cannot be shifted onto the insurance company. The Court reiterated that the Act is a social welfare legislation intended to provide expeditious relief to employees and their dependents, and must be interpreted liberally and purposively. II. FACTUAL MATRIX A. The Accident and Claim The deceased employee was working as a commercial driver. In February 2017, he died while driving the insured vehicle during the cour...

I. INTRODUCTION: DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL AND FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS The recent directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) raise significant questions concerning national security, evidentiary disclosure, and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to decide within one month whether “sensitive” documents relied upon in prosecution should be supplied to a retired Army officer facing trial. The Court made it clear that confidentiality cannot be used as a shield if the same documents form the basis of criminal charges. The matter arises from the prosecution of Major General (Retd.) V.K. Singh, author of the book India’s External Intelligence – Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) (2007), in which he allegedly disclosed classified information relating to the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). II. FA...

I. INTRODUCTION The appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before the Delhi High Court challenging the discharge of former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in the Delhi excise policy case raises significant questions about criminal procedure, judicial discretion at the stage of charge, and the limits of judicial scrutiny before trial. The Special Judge, Jitendra Singh, in an order dated February 27, discharged all 23 accused persons, holding that the material on record did not disclose even a prima facie case, much less a grave suspicion. The CBI has described this order as “patently illegal” and has alleged that the judge conducted a “mini trial” at the stage of framing of charge. This controversy brings into focus the statutory framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure, constitutional protections, and binding judicial precedents governing discharge and framing of charges. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The 2...

I. Introduction Nearly five years after a fatal stabbing at Dadar railway station in Mumbai, a Sessions Court held that the offence committed by vegetable vendor Sonilal Sukhadev Mahanto amounted not to murder, but to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The decision turned on the application of the “sudden fight” exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), significantly altering the legal character of the crime and the punishment imposed. II. Factual Background The incident occurred on June 24, 2019, near Platform No. 1 of Dadar railway station on Senapati Bapat Marg. According to the prosecution: Mohammad Hanif purchased a pumpkin from Mahanto. Hanif tendered a ₹10 note which was torn. The vendor refused to accept the damaged note. A verbal altercation followed when Hanif said he had no alternative currency. During the quarrel, Mahanto stabbed Hanif with a knife. Hanif was taken to Sion Hospital and was declared dead on arrival. Medical evidence showed two stab injuries — one ...

I. Introduction The reported killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in joint US–Israel strikes has triggered a dramatic escalation across West Asia. Iran has allegedly launched retaliatory ballistic missile and drone attacks targeting US military installations in the Gulf region, including claims of strikes on a naval base in Kuwait. Explosions were reported in Dubai, Doha, and Manama, with injuries confirmed in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Authorities in the UAE confirmed a fire incident near Palm Jumeirah and missile interceptions by air defence systems. A civilian fatality due to falling debris was reported in Abu Dhabi. Governments across the region issued advisories as over 700 flights were cancelled and multiple countries shut their airspace. This unfolding crisis raises significant questions under international law, constitutional law (in domestic contexts), and treaty obligations governing use of force, civilian protection, and state responsibility. II. Fact...

I. Introduction The Supreme Court of India recently delivered strong observations while quashing an FIR registered by the Rajasthan Police against Ashish Dave, former regional head of Zee Rajasthan. The Court criticised the state police for acting like “James Bond” and adopting a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta termed the FIR “as bogus an FIR as it can get” and held that allowing such a complaint to survive would send a disturbing message about unequal access to justice. The ruling revisits fundamental questions about the legality of FIR registration, the limits of criminal law, and judicial safeguards against abuse of process. II. Factual Background In September 2023, an FIR was registered at Ashok Nagar Police Station, Jaipur, based on a complaint filed by Zee Media Corporation Limited through its representative Sanju Raju. The complaint alleged that Ashish Dave misused his position as regional head to: Demand money fro...

I. Case Background In a significant development in the Delhi excise policy investigation, 23 accused persons — including former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Telangana politician K. Kavitha and AAP leader Vijay Nair — were discharged by Special Judge Jitender Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi, in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case relating to the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy. The Central Bureau of Investigation had registered an FIR in August 2022 alleging criminal conspiracy and corruption in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22. Three charge sheets were filed, with the second naming Kejriwal. The CBI alleged that ₹100 crore was paid by a so-called “south lobby” to influence the excise policy in favour of certain private players. Charges invoked included criminal conspiracy, cheating, destruction of evidence and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the trial co...

Case Overview The Supreme Court of India has indicated that it is open to referring the issue of ex-post facto environmental clearance (EC) to a five-judge Constitution Bench if it finds reason to doubt a recent three-judge bench ruling delivered on November 18 last year. The observation was made by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the 2017 and 2021 notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC). These notifications allowed project proponents to seek environmental clearance after commencing construction or operations — a departure from the long-standing regime of prior environmental clearance . Factual Background 1. The Notifications Under Challenge The MoEFCC issued notifications in 2017 and 2021 permitting certain projects to obtain environmental clearance retrospectively. Petitioners — including environmental NGOs Van...

I. Introduction The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant clarification in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. The Court held that a Class 10 (Madhyamik) admit card cannot be treated as a standalone document for verifying voter parentage and date of birth. Instead, it must be submitted along with the Madhyamik pass certificate . This clarification emerged during urgent submissions made by the Election Commission of India (ECI) before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi. The decision is legally significant as it intersects electoral integrity, constitutional powers under Article 142, and procedural safeguards in voter verification. II. Factual Background: The SIR and Logical Discrepancy Category The controversy arises from the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, where: Nearly 13.6 million voters were issued notices un...

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of the “None of the Above” (NOTA) option in Indian elections, questioning whether it has achieved its intended democratic purpose. More than a decade after its introduction by judicial mandate, the Court observed that NOTA has hardly influenced political parties’ candidate selection practices , with electoral choices continuing to be driven by electability rather than ethical standards. The remarks were made during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy challenging the practice of uncontested elections, which allegedly deprive voters of the opportunity to exercise their right to choose, including the option of NOTA. This case raises critical constitutional and democratic questions about voter choice, electoral accountability, and the nature of democratic participation in India. Background: What is NOTA and Why Was It Introduced? The 2013 Supr...

I. Background: WhatsApp’s Submissions Before the Supreme Court WhatsApp recently informed the Supreme Court of India that it does not read private messages, sell user data, or use encrypted chats for targeted advertisements , reaffirming its commitment to end-to-end encryption. However, it strongly opposed a blanket prohibition on data sharing with its parent company, Meta Platforms , arguing that such a restriction would harm user choice, disrupt legitimate business operations, and negatively impact small Indian enterprises that rely on digital advertising. The matter is being heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymala Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi , in appeals filed by WhatsApp, Meta, and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) ruling dated November 4, 2025 , which upheld a penalty of ₹213.14 crore on WhatsApp for abuse of dominance under competition law. II. Regulatory Background: C...