Law & Justice

Delhi university students detained over wall murals on Bastar killings, allegedly beaten in custody

Court rulings reveal selective investigation shielding BJP’s Kapil Mishra, wrongful prosecution of six men based on flimsy evidence, and custodial violence against Muslim detainees—forcing an FIR against a former SHO

Ensuring fair wages, social security, and dignity for India’s domestic workforce

SC to review forensic report on leaked audio tapes purportedly featuring Manipur CM admitting to arming Meitei group; orders sealed submission of CFSL report before next hearing on March 24

The newly introduced BNSS has dangerous and regressive provisions on attachment of property with powers that are sweeping for the police and lower judiciary

The Supreme Court, on January 21, 2025, reiterated that the Police does not have the authority to serve notice upon accused persons via WhatsApp, email, SMS, or any other electronic mode. This recent order of the Supreme Court was passed on a plea related to the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI. The Court held that notices must strictly only be served as per the prescribed procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Uttarakhand has become the first state in independent India to enact a comprehensive Uniform Civil Code (UCC), taking a step towards uniformity in personal laws, affecting matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption across all religions. The move has reignited debates regarding the balance between individual rights, religious freedoms, and the constitutional vision of a secular and egalitarian society. While supporters of the step view the UCC as a progressive reform that upholds gender justice and national unity, concerns have been expressed by various critics over its impact on religious diversity and personal autonomy.

The recent Bombay High Court judgment (23rd January 2025) addresses the contentious issue of the use of loudspeakers at places of worship and their legal standing under Article 25 of the Constitution. The case was initiated following complaints by residents about persistent noise pollution caused by loudspeakers from religious institutions (masjids), particularly during early morning and late-night hours. The court examined whether such practices constituted an essential religious function or merely a cultural practice subject to regulation under existing noise pollution laws. The court ruled that loudspeakers are not an essential part of religious practice and directed the Maharashtra government and police to take strict action against violations of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. This ruling aligns with past judicial pronouncements while also raising questions about unequal enforcement of noise regulations across different religious communities.

Their freedom comes after years of judicial neglect and the systemic abuse of laws to silence opposition; highlights the weaponisation of anti-terror laws to crush dissent and derail justice.

While the immediate burial dispute is resolved, the Court’s failure to address the discriminatory nature of segregated burial grounds reveals a reluctance to challenge systemic religious biases, leaving an unresolved question about the right to dignity and equal treatment in death