RDM LAW GYAN

RDM LAW GYAN 📜 About Us: Your Legal Knowledge Hub
ADVOCATE
RATNDEEP MANDWE
your go to destination for reliable, engaging, and practical legal knowledge.

Whether you're a law student, aspiring legal professional, or simply curious about your right

22/05/2026

🚨 Love Marriage vs Family Pressure — Delhi High Court’s Big Observation! ⚖️

Can two adults marry against their family’s wishes and still get police protection?

According to recent observations of the Delhi High Court — YES, they can.

The Court emphasized that if two adults are in a consensual relationship or marriage, they have:
✔ The right to live with dignity
✔ The right to choose their life partner
✔ The right to seek protection from threats — even from family members

This debate has now become much bigger than just “love marriage.”

It’s about:
⚖️ Constitutional Freedom
⚖️ Article 21 – Right to Life & Personal Liberty
⚖️ Individual Choice vs Social Control

At the same time, many people believe that:
🏠 Family values and social structure must also be respected.

But legally, Indian courts have repeatedly held that:
👉 Adults have the freedom to choose whom they want to marry.

The real question is —
Should family approval be necessary for adult relationships? 🤔

💬 Share your opinion in the comments.










03/09/2025

⚖️ Lessons from Gauri Lankesh’s Murder Trial

📰 8 years later, justice still waits

Trial began 5 years after her murder (2022).

Out of 532 witnesses, only 193 examined.

Hearings: just 3–5 days a month.

17 of 18 accused are on bail; 1 still absconding.

📊 The Larger Pattern

Since 1992 → 61+ journalists killed in India.

2014–2024 → 19 murders unsolved.

India ranks 13th on CPJ’s Global Impunity Index (2024).

Cases of Shujaat Bukhari, Rajdev Ranjan, Shivani Bhatnagar, Parag Das → all dragged for years, many accused acquitted.

📌 Why it Matters

Murder of journalists is not just homicide.

It is a direct assault on Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech & Expression.

Each killing silences stories, threatens democracy.

⚠️ What’s Missing?

Weak investigations.

Hostile/intimidated witnesses.

Endless adjournments.

Bureaucratic and judicial delays.

✅ The Way Forward

Fast-track courts for journalist murders (as recommended by PCI in 2016).

Strong witness protection.

Accountability in investigation.

Honour India’s international obligations (ICCPR, UN Plan of Action).

👉 Justice delayed here = Democracy denied.

03/09/2025

✨ Where are the Women Judges? ✨
India’s Supreme Court talks about equality… but practices glaring inequality. ⚖️

📌 Current Reality
👩‍⚖️ Out of 34 SC judges → only 1 woman (Justice B.V. Nagarathna).
📜 Since 1950 → only 11 women judges (just 3.8% of all).
⏳ First woman CJI in 2027 → but for just 36 days.

📌 The Problem
❌ Women appointed at older ages → shorter tenure.
❌ Rare entry from the Bar → only Justice Indu Malhotra ever.
❌ No SC/ST woman judge in 75 years.
❌ Collegium hides criteria → gender not a priority.

📌 Why Women Judges Matter
✔️ Bring diverse perspectives & lived experiences.
✔️ Strengthen trust in the judiciary.
✔️ Make the Court more representative of India.

📌 The Way Forward
➡️ Make gender representation mandatory in appointments.
➡️ Appoint more women directly from the Bar.
➡️ Ensure diversity in caste, region, religion & gender.

👉 The Supreme Court must match its words on equality with action on representation.

Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): Triple Talaq Case"Equality in Personal Laws: A Giant Leap Forward!" ⚖️The Supreme...
26/11/2024

Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): Triple Talaq Case
"Equality in Personal Laws: A Giant Leap Forward!" ⚖️

The Supreme Court declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional, holding it discriminatory under Article 14. This verdict upheld gender justice and equality, marking a progressive step for women's rights. 👩‍⚖️

💬 How can equality be further ensured in personal laws? Share your insights!

D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983): Pensioners' Equality"No Discrimination Among Pensioners!" 🕊️This landmark case ext...
26/11/2024

D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983): Pensioners' Equality
"No Discrimination Among Pensioners!" 🕊️

This landmark case extended Article 14 to protect pensioners' rights, ruling that differentiation within a homogenous class is unconstitutional. It ensured social security as an integral part of equality. 💼

🤔 Should welfare measures expand further for senior citizens? Share your opinion!

2. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Equality for LGBTQIA+"Breaking Chains, Embracing Equality!" 🌈The Supreme...
26/11/2024

2. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Equality for LGBTQIA+
"Breaking Chains, Embracing Equality!" 🌈

The Supreme Court struck down Section 377, declaring it unconstitutional under Article 14. It affirmed that dignity, equality, and privacy are fundamental rights for all, including the LGBTQIA+ community. 🌟

💬 What does equality mean to you in modern India? Let us know!

"Equality Is the Antidote to Arbitrariness!" ⚖️In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that arbitrariness violates Article...
26/11/2024

"Equality Is the Antidote to Arbitrariness!" ⚖️

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that arbitrariness violates Article 14 and redefined equality as fairness. It declared that state actions must not be arbitrary or discriminatory, ensuring governance based on reason and justice. 🚨

🗨️ Can arbitrariness ever be justified? Share your views below!

💼 Reservations in India: A Landmark Judgment! ⚖️Did you know? In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Cou...
26/11/2024

💼 Reservations in India: A Landmark Judgment! ⚖️

Did you know? In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld the principle of affirmative action while capping reservations at 50% to maintain a balance with merit and equality under Article 14. 🎯

This judgment was a game-changer for social justice and sparked debates across the nation. It clarified that equality doesn’t mean identical treatment but fair opportunities for all. 🌟

🤔 What are your thoughts on the 50% cap on reservations? Should it be revised or retained? Drop your opinions below! ⬇️

📢 Landmark Case: Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004)✨ About the Case:The Union of India v. Naveen Jindal judgment is ...
20/11/2024

📢 Landmark Case: Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004)

✨ About the Case:
The Union of India v. Naveen Jindal judgment is a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India that upheld the right to fly the national flag as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression.

👩‍⚖️ Key Highlights of the Judgment:

1️⃣ Right to Fly the National Flag:

Naveen Jindal, a businessman and Member of Parliament, challenged the government’s restriction on private citizens flying the Indian national flag.
The Supreme Court ruled that displaying the national flag is a form of expression protected under Article 19(1)(a).
2️⃣ Reasonable Restrictions:

The Court held that while flying the flag is a fundamental right, it must be subject to reasonable restrictions as per Article 19(2) to maintain respect and dignity for the flag.
3️⃣ Symbol of Patriotism:

The judgment emphasized that the national flag is a symbol of the nation’s pride and sovereignty. Allowing citizens to display it fosters a sense of patriotism and unity.
🌱 Why It Matters:
This case is significant for affirming individual rights while respecting national symbols. It also clarified that restrictions on fundamental rights must be reasonable and not arbitrary.

📜 Impact:
Following the judgment, the Flag Code of India, 2002, was amended to allow private citizens to hoist the national flag on all days, provided they adhere to the code’s guidelines.

🔗 Stay Informed! Follow us for updates on landmark judgments and legal rights.

📢 Landmark Case: Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)✨ About the Case:The Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab case is a signific...
20/11/2024

📢 Landmark Case: Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

✨ About the Case:
The Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab case is a significant Supreme Court judgment that addressed the legality of euthanasia and the right to die in India. The case arose when Gian Kaur challenged her conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment of su***de, arguing that the "right to die" is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the "right to life."

👩‍⚖️ Key Highlights of the Judgment:

Right to Life vs. Right to Die:
The Supreme Court ruled that the "right to life" under Article 21 does not include the "right to die." The Court emphasized that life is sacred and must be protected, and the Constitution does not support the unnatural termination of life.

Distinction Between Euthanasia and Su***de:

Su***de: The Court clarified that abetment of su***de is a criminal offense under Section 306 IPC.
Euthanasia: While rejecting the "right to die," the judgment left the question of euthanasia open for future debate, distinguishing it from su***de.
Overruling of Previous Judgment:
This case overruled the earlier decision in P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), which had held that the right to die was part of Article 21.

🌱 Why It Matters:
This judgment provided clarity on the legal and constitutional position of su***de and euthanasia in India. It reinforced the sanctity of life while highlighting the complexities surrounding end-of-life decisions, leading to subsequent debates and reforms.

📜 Impact:
The verdict set the stage for future deliberations on euthanasia, ultimately influencing the Supreme Court's decision in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), which legalized passive euthanasia under specific conditions.

🔗 Stay Informed! Follow us for updates on landmark judgments and legal rights.

Address

Bhopal
462043

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when RDM LAW GYAN posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category