Author: Naina Rajesh

The Telangana High Court has ruled that Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 does not apply when a secured creditor suppresses material facts…

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 on Friday declined to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 32 seeking restoration of a blocked WhatsApp account, holding that there is no fundamental right to use the messaging app. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the maintainability of the plea and suggested users could opt for indigenous alternatives such as Arattai by Zoho. The petitioner, a doctor who relied on WhatsApp professionally, later withdrew the plea, with liberty to pursue civil or other legal remedies, amid wider discussions on digital platform accountability and user rights in India.

The Supreme Court ruled on 6 October 2025 that tender conditions requiring prior supply experience **within a specific state** are unconstitutional. In *Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh*, the Court struck down the rule for violating **Article 14** (equality) and **Article 19(1)(g)** (freedom of trade), stressing that public procurement must ensure fair competition and a “level playing field.” Geographical restrictions lacking rational justification were deemed arbitrary. The decision reinforces that tender rules must serve legitimate objectives, not create artificial barriers favoring local suppliers over qualified national bidders.

Albania’s appointment of “Diella,” an AI, as a government minister raises serious constitutional questions. Critics say ministers must be human—able to take oaths, answer parliament, and bear legal responsibility—so an AI creates an “accountability gap.” Supporters argue AI could curb corruption and boost efficiency. The move may clash with EU rules on human oversight. Experts say such a fundamental change likely requires constitutional amendment, not executive reinterpretation, and urge safeguards like meaningful human control, transparency, audits, and clear legal liability.

The Supreme Court has directed the CBI to register FIRs after its seventh preliminary enquiry found cognizable offences in the alleged builder–bank nexus for projects outside…

The Calcutta High Court commuted the death sentences of two men convicted of raping and murdering a five-year-old girl to life imprisonment without remission for 60 years. While confirming their guilt, the Court applied the “rarest of rare” doctrine and found mitigating factors like socio-economic background and post-custody conduct. Citing constitutional principles and Article 21, the Court held that life imprisonment is the rule, death the exception. By imposing a fixed non-remittable term, it balanced retribution with human rights, ensuring severe punishment while avoiding capital execution—a “third way” between life and death sentences.

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of investigative agencies summoning lawyers during criminal investigations and will frame guidelines to protect lawyer-client privilege and professional independence. A bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud will hear the matter on July 14. The move follows concerns after the ED summoned Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, later withdrawing the notices amid backlash. Bar associations urged intervention, warning of a “chilling effect” on legal practice. The Court’s guidelines are expected to safeguard legal confidentiality and uphold the autonomy of the legal profession.

The Supreme Court, in M3M v. Directorate of Enforcement, permitted substitution of immovable property attached under the PMLA with alternate immovable assets of equal or higher value. A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan allowed the real estate firm’s request to replace provisionally attached land with commercial units in its Gurugram project, valued at ₹317 crore, as confirmed by the ED. The Court imposed conditions outlined in the ED’s affidavit and disposed of the SLP. This ruling, building on Revati Cements v. UOI, expands the principle of substitution from fixed deposits to immovable property, balancing enforcement under PMLA with the need to ensure continuity of commercial projects.

The Supreme Court, in Dhanya M v. State of Kerala, quashed a preventive detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, holding that such laws cannot be used to bypass bail procedures. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan ruled that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure under Article 21 and must be applied sparingly. The Court found that the detention of a moneylender with pending criminal cases was based on law-and-order issues, not threats to public order. It stressed that the proper course was to seek bail cancellation, not misuse preventive detention.