Author: Adv. Neha

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 speculative investors cannot use Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate insolvency proceedings against real estate developers. Affirming the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s decision, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the IBC’s objective is to revive distressed companies and protect genuine homebuyers, not speculative actors seeking assured returns. The Court identified indicators of speculation such as buyback clauses, refusal of possession, high-interest refund demands, and deviations from the RERA Model Agreement, directing such investors to approach RERA, consumer fora, or civil courts instead.

The Supreme Court has directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Dehradun, to dispose of a pending securitisation application within the statutory period under Section 17(5) of the SARFAESI Act—60 days, extendable up to four months with recorded reasons. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, hearing Indian Overseas Bank v. Radhey Infra Solutions (P) Ltd., set aside the High Court’s non-intervention approach and criticised the DRT for delay. The Court underscored that extensions must be justified in writing, stressing the legislature’s intent for swift resolution of such applications.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih ordered the release of a man convicted in a 1981 murder case after confirming he was 12 years and 5 months old at the time of the offence. Citing Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the Court held that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage and applies retrospectively. The bench ruled that custody beyond the three-year limit under juvenile law violates Article 21 and reaffirmed the rehabilitative nature of juvenile justice while criticizing past procedural lapses.

Mental health is gaining attention, but legal and policy gaps remain. Laws in the U.S. and India require insurance coverage for mental health equal to physical health, but enforcement is weak. Insurers often impose hidden limits, exclusions, or inadequate coverage, leaving treatment unaffordable for many. True parity means mandatory, comprehensive coverage—including telehealth—strong regulation, public investment, and workforce expansion. Courts have advanced mental health rights, but without funding and accountability, progress risks remaining symbolic. Achieving real parity requires treating mental health with the same seriousness as physical health—in law, policy, and budgets.

India’s gig economy has grown rapidly, employing millions in app-based and freelance work. The Code on Social Security, 2020 is the first law to recognize gig workers and extend social security through schemes covering insurance, health, and pensions. States like Rajasthan have added welfare measures, and workers can register on the e-Shram portal. However, low registration, unclear definitions, weak funding, fragmented governance, and lack of employment rights remain major challenges. Courts are addressing safety and classification issues, while the ILO promotes global best practices. Stronger laws, platform contributions, and clear protections are needed for lasting impact.

The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a suo motu PIL, strongly criticized police for their lenient response to a viral incident where a businessman’s son held a birthday celebration on a Raipur highway, blocking traffic. Offenders were fined only ₹2,000, which the court called ineffective for the wealthy. Citing provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Motor Vehicles Act, and National Highways Act, the court stressed that such road stunts endanger public safety and must be addressed with strict, uniform enforcement, regardless of social status, to prevent lawlessness.

CJI B.R. Gavai, speaking at a UK legal roundtable, cautioned against out-of-context reporting of judges’ casual courtroom remarks. He cited a recent incident where a humorous comment was misrepresented as judicial “ego,” warning that such misreporting harms public trust. While supporting live-streaming of constitutional cases for transparency, he noted risks of selective or misleading portrayals on social media. Urging responsible journalism, he stressed that judicial comments must be reported with context to preserve credibility and dignity. His remarks highlight the balance between openness and accurate reporting in sustaining faith in the judiciary.