Legal Opinion

09/06/2026

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice on application for interim relief moved by Journalist Anjana Om Kashyap and TV Today Network against allegedly defamatory remarks by exam coaching teacher Faisal Khan–also known popularly as Khan sir, as well as other educators.

The interim relief application has been filed in Kashyap's defamation suit against Khan sir and other defendants namely Abhinay Sharma, Babita Tyagi, Arvind Bhadauriya, Manish Yadav and X account users SamKhasa and Abhimanyu1305.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna however refused to pass any interim injunction order in the application today, and listed the matter on June 17. The suit has been filed over Khan Sir's allegedly defamatory remarks against the journalist in reference to her coverage on "star teachers".

"The counsel for respondent 4-6, 8 and 2 have put appearance. Let notice be issued to others as well through all permissible modes" the court said while issuing notice.

The senior advocate appearing for Kashyap and the network submitted that the defendants 1-4 were posting "abusive and toxic content" on social media, then it is picked up by others and is circulated and disseminated.

Meanwhile Advocate Rakesh Malhotra appearing for defendants 4-6 pointed to posts made by the plaintiff. He said that if the defendant's post has to go then even plaintiff's post has to go.

At this stage the court orally said, "It is a very simple case. They are saying derogatory material is posted on social media. It is settled law that if it is derogatory, it has to be (taken down)...The plaint is very clear. They are saying we are derogatory material and specific allegations are against them. You have right to say whatever you want to but if it is prima facie derogatory, it has to be pulled down".

08/06/2026

The Allahabad High Court recently flagged that a number of accused are filing habeas corpus petitions to challenge their detention even after rejection of their bail pleas up to the level of Supreme Court [Neeraj And Another v State of UP and Another]

A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi added that such accused rely upon Supreme Court’s latest rulings which state that the initial defect in remand of the accused is incurable and that fundamental rights can be enforced at any stage of a case.

The situation is chaotic, the Bench said, adding that if it is permitted to continue, accused persons will continue to file habeas corpus petitions “at will” to assert their fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India irrespective of the stage of investigation or trial.

“Therefore, in the absence of any fetters on the right of accused to approach this court challenging his initial arrest, a pandoras box has been opened and the petitions are being filed after cognizance on charge sheet, framing of charge and remand orders under Sections 209 and 309 Cr.P.C and also during recording of evidence in trial,” the Bench said.

16/04/2026

The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 16) rejected a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to introduce compulsory voting in India along with penal consequences for citizens who deliberately abstain from voting, observing that participation in elections cannot be enforced through coercive measures.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi remarked that while citizens are expected to exercise their franchise in a democracy governed by the rule of law, the State cannot compel individuals to vote.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel suggested that the Court could direct the Election Commission of India to constitute a committee to frame guidelines for compulsory voting and consider restrictions on access to certain government amenities for those who fail to vote without valid reasons.

Responding to the submission, the Chief Justice questioned the feasibility and legality of enforcing such a mandate.

"If a citizen doesn't go for voting, what can we do? Should we direct he should be arrested? In a country which is governed by rule of law, every voter is expected to go and cast vote. It is a matter of public awareness. There should be public awareness campaign about right to franchise...but we can't compel," CJI observed.

The Bench emphasized that voter participation is fundamentally a matter of civic awareness rather than legal compulsion. It observed that efforts should be directed towards strengthening public awareness campaigns about the importance of the right to vote, instead of imposing punitive measures.

Disposing of the petition, the Court held that the issues raised fall within the policy domain and are best addressed by the appropriate legislative and executive authorities. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the concerned stakeholders for consideration of the proposal.

Recently, while hearing another matter, CJI Surya Kant, after expressing concerns over the low polling percentage, especially in urban areas, had orally observed that there must be some mechanism to make voting compulsory.

19/12/2025

15/12/2025

BNS Section 302 refers to the offense of uttering words, making sounds, gestures, or placing objects with the deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person, under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, replacing the old IPC Section 298, carrying a punishment of up to one year imprisonment, fine, or both. It's part of Chapter XVI, focusing on offences relating to religion, and is triable by any Magistrate.

20/09/2025

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an independent, court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight AI171, which killed 260 people, including passengers, crew and persons on the ground, on June 12, 2025.

The petition, filed by Safety Matters Foundation, an aviation safety NGO led by Capt. Amit Singh FRAeS, under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleges that the manner in which the probe has been conducted violates the fundamental rights to life, equality, and truthful information.

According to the petition, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) issued its Preliminary Report on July 12, 2025, attributing the crash to “fuel cutoff switches” being moved from RUN to CUTOFF, thereby suggesting pilot error. The petitioner contends that the report withholds crucial flight data such as the complete Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) output, the full Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) transcript with timestamps, and the Electronic Aircraft Fault Recording (EAFR) data, all of which are essential for an objective understanding of the incident.

The petition further argues that the report downplays documented system anomalies, including fuel switch defects, electrical faults, RAT deployment and electrical disturbances, and prematurely points towards pilot error in a manner contrary to Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention, which mandates an independent and prevention-focused investigation.

21/04/2025

A letter has been sent to the Attorney General for India seeking sanction to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for his remarks against the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.

As per the letter sent by an Advocate-on-Record, Dubey said that the "Supreme Court is taking the country towards anarchy" and that "Chief Justice of India Sanijv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country." The comments were made taking objection to the Supreme Court setting timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

It was also alleged that Dubey made communally polarising statements in the context of the Court's intervention in the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act.

The AoR, who filed the petition before AG R Venkataramani under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, submitted that Dubey's comments are "deeply derogatory" and "dangerously provocative". "He recklessly attributes national unrest to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, thus scandalising the highest judicial office in the country and attempting to provoke public dissent, outrage and possible unrest," the letter said.

Such comments, without any basis, constitute a grave attack on the integrity and independence of the judiciary, the letter stated, seeking criminal contempt action against the deliberate attempt to vilify the Court.

10/04/2025

The Supreme Court will hear the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 on April 16.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan will hear the matters. Nine petitions have been listed.

The controversial amendment law makes key changes to the 1995 Act.

The Bill seeks to rename the 1995 Act to the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act to reflect its broader objective of improving the management and efficiency of Waqf boards and properties.

While the Act allowed waqf to be formed by declaration, long-term use, or endowment, the Bill states that only a person practicing Islam for at least five years may declare a waqf. It clarifies that the person must own the property being declared. It removes waqf by user, where properties could be deemed as waqf based solely on prolonged use for religious purposes. It also adds that waqf-alal-aulad must not result in the denial of inheritance rights to the donor’s heir including women heirs.

While the Act empowered the Waqf Board to inquire and determine if a property is waqf, the Bill removes this provision.

The Bill provides that two members of the Central Waqf Council - set up to advise the Central and State governments and waqf boards - must be non-Muslims. Members of Parliament, former judges, and eminent persons appointed to the Council as per the Act need not be Muslims. Representatives of Muslim organisations, scholars in Islamic law, and chairpersons of Waqf Boards must be Muslims. Of the Muslim members, two must be women.

The Bill empowers the Central government to make rules regarding registration, publication of accounts of waqf, and publication of proceedings of Waqf Boards.

Under the Act, State governments could get the accounts of Waqfs audited at any point. The Bill empowers the Central government to get these audited by the CAG or a designated officer.

27/11/2024