News Summary The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark decision clarifying the legal parameters for invoking a plea of demurrer—an objection that tests the legal sufficiency…
Kerala High Court has held that time spent by an accused on interim/temporary bail cannot be counted as “detention” for computing the statutory period for default…
Madras High Court held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 prevails over Muslim personal law for adoptions, and that upon an…
The Supreme Court has ruled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship under the Industrial Disputes Act depends on a multifactor assessment—chiefly control, supervision, business integration, remuneration source, and disciplinary authority—rather than on mere provision of facilities or subsidies. Deciding in General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Achchey Lal (2025 INSC 1175), the Court set aside rulings that had treated a bank’s canteen workers as its employees, holding that the bank only provided infrastructure and subsidy while a staff society hired and managed the workers, negating a direct master–servant relationship.
The Delhi High Court, in its ruling on Arjun Patil v. Union of India & Ors., clarified two key aspects concerning foreign exchange law. It held that Indian currency involved in unauthorized foreign exchange dealings could be confiscated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The Court also emphasized that appeals to the High Court under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), are restricted solely to questions of law and do not extend to factual disputes. The judgment delineates the boundary between legal and factual considerations in foreign exchange enforcement cases.
The Delhi High Court has acquitted Rahul Bhupinder Verma, previously convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that allegations of “physical relations” without clear details or supporting evidence cannot substantiate charges of rape or penetrative sexual assault. The court noted that terms like “physical relations” and “sambandh” must be explicitly defined to meet the legal standards. It further observed delays in filing the FIR, lack of medical or forensic proof, and absence of foundational facts for applying the statutory presumption under Section 29 of POCSO.
The Supreme Court of India is hearing Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, a key case on alleged government surveillance using Pegasus spyware. Pegasus can secretly access smartphones and was reportedly used to target journalists, politicians, and activists. Petitioners argue this violates privacy and free speech rights. The government denied wrongdoing, citing national security and existing surveillance laws. Finding its response inadequate, the Court set up an independent Technical Committee to investigate. The case raises questions on privacy, legality, and oversight, and its outcome will shape India’s digital rights and surveillance framework.
