Legal Opinion

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

26/11/2024

https://youtu.be/It5n6zRshdI?si=8_HVHgdIWmxnfbEN

With the Varanasi District Court allowing prayers in the basement of the Gyanvapi Masjid - the locks have literally come off and this could be the start of s...

26/11/2024

https://youtu.be/6Bv4omwSMMU?si=gpFipg3wAfjMltx2

Uttar Pradesh's Sambhal witnessed tragic violence and this might repeat all over India in the coming years. Tensions began after a sudden judicial order to '...

27/08/2024

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Calcutta High Court to restrain Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) from observing a state wide Bengal Bandh [Sanjoy Das vs State of West Bengal].

The request for urgent filing and listing of the PIL has been allowed and the matter is slated to be heard tomorrow as the first case.

BJP Bengal has announced a 12-hour Bangla Bandh on August 28 to protest against atrocities by police on students demonstrating against the recent r**e and murder of a doctor in Kolkata's RG Kar hospital.

The PIL filed by advocate Agnish Basu states that the plea has been filed to ensure that the "day to day public life of the common man is not affected by illegal bandhs called by political parties."

News by Bar & Bench

04/03/2024

Legally Wedded Wife Cannot Go Outside Marriage: Allahabad HC Cites Shariat Law To Deny Protection To Muslim-Hindu Live-In Couple.

A Single Bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed, “From the factual matrix of the case it is apparent that petitioner no.1 is legally wedded wife petitioner no.2. She has not obtained any decree of divorce from the competent authority. She is living with petitioner no.2 in contravention of the provisions of Muslim Law(Shariat), wherein legally wedded wife can not go out side marriage and this act of Muslim women is defined as Zina and Haram. If we go to the criminality of the act of petitioner no.1 she may be prosecuted for the offence under section 494 and 495 IPC, as such relationship is not covered within the phrase of live-in-relationship or relationship in the nature of marriage.”

24/02/2024

The Supreme Court held that the non-performance of marriage by the accused at the booked marriage hall doesn't amount to committing an offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 IPC.

Court's observation:

“We do not see how an offence even under Section 417 of IPC is made out against the present appellant. There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end. There is no such evidence before the prosecution and therefore no offence under Section 417 is also made out,"

Supreme Court, Reversing the High Court's findings which refused to quash the charge under Section 417 IPC, the Bench Comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and P.B. Varale observed that to constitute an offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that the intention to deceive on the part of the accused should be right from the beginning.

“Time and again, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under cheating the intention to cheat or deceive should be right from the beginning. By no stretch of imagination, this is even reflected from the complaint made by the informant.”