Browsing: Indian judiciary

Justice P.N. Bhagwati (1921–2017), former Chief Justice of India, transformed Indian constitutional law through judicial activism, PIL, and the doctrine of absolute liability. He expanded Article 21 to include dignity, fairness, and socio-economic rights, championed bonded labor abolition, strengthened judicial independence, and made justice accessible even via letters. Landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi, Francis Coralie Mullin, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, MC Mehta, and SP Gupta reflect his philosophy of a living Constitution serving the marginalized. Despite his controversial role in ADM Jabalpur, Bhagwati’s legacy lies in embedding human dignity, accountability, and access to justice at the heart of Indian jurisprudence.

Fali S. Nariman’s autobiography Before Memory Fades mixes legal memoir with moral guidance. It recalls his childhood after fleeing Rangoon, his rise at the Bombay Bar, and lessons from mentors and landmark cases. Nariman emphasizes patience, rigorous preparation, honesty with the court, and integrity—shown by his resignation during the Emergency—and offers practical rules for young lawyers. He defends constitutional values, judicial independence, lifelong learning, and ethical practice, portraying law as a service led by conscience.

Nani Palkhivala’s life offers a model for first-generation lawyers to succeed through knowledge and values, not privilege. Rising from modest beginnings, he mastered legal fundamentals, used constitutional law to empower, and honed language as his key advocacy tool. His integrity, clarity, relentless learning, and preparation set him apart. Palkhivala emphasized respecting institutions, using law for public good, and believing in its power for change. His journey shows that reputation is built through ethics, skill, and service—proving that a lasting legal legacy can be created without inherited networks.

The Supreme Court’s 4:1 ruling in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. allows limited modification of arbitral awards under Section 34, marking a significant shift in Indian arbitration law. The majority held that correcting severable, manifest errors avoids wasteful re-arbitration while preserving arbitral autonomy, relying on implied powers and Article 142. The dissent warned this risks judicial overreach and undermines arbitral finality. Though safeguards were outlined, their effectiveness depends on judicial restraint. Without legislative clarity, this flexibility may unsettle investor confidence and enforcement abroad. Parliament must codify clear limits to balance efficiency with finality.

The Supreme Court has placed a limited stay on the Bombay High Court’s 7/11 Mumbai train blasts acquittal judgment, stating it cannot be used as a precedent in other cases. A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh balanced the acquitted individuals’ liberty with the State’s concerns about the ruling’s wider impact on MCOCA trials. While the acquittals remain, the Court will hear Maharashtra’s appeal later. The High Court had earlier acquitted all 11 accused, citing investigative lapses and unreliable evidence. The Supreme Court’s move quarantines the ruling’s legal effect without reversing the acquittals.

The Supreme Court of India, while closing the Salwa Judum case, held that passing a law by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot by itself amount to contempt of court. The Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma clarified that legislation is a valid exercise of legislative power and cannot be treated as defiance of a judicial order unless found unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the principle of separation of powers, stressing that legislatures can make or amend laws, but their validity can only be tested through judicial review, not contempt proceedings.

A Symbiosis law student from Kolkata was arrested in Gurgaon after posting a video on Instagram alleged to contain derogatory remarks against a religion. Though she deleted the video and issued an apology, she faces charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for promoting enmity and provoking breach of peace. The case raises key questions on the scope of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and its limits under Article 19(2). Courts must now decide whether her statement amounts to hate speech or falls within protected expression, a ruling that could influence future free speech jurisprudence.

On May 28, 2025, a Special MP/MLA Court in Mumbai rejected a plea seeking cancellation of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s bail in a defamation case over his remarks on freedom fighter V.D. Savarkar. The plea, filed by Savarkar’s grandnephew, alleged Gandhi was delaying the trial. Judge Amol Shinde found no evidence of intentional delay and said strict action was not justified. The case, based on Gandhi’s 2023 speech in the UK, continues under Section 500 IPC for defamation, with proceedings to follow the summons format allowing wider evidence. The trial will continue as scheduled.