Law & Justice

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.

While setting aside a judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Mahabir v State of Haryana judgement, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the declining standards of prosecution and warned against politically motivated appointments of law officers, linking prosecutorial lapses to failures in ensuring fair trials

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

The tragic events in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, have once again spotlighted the issue of custodial deaths, communal tensions, and state accountability in India. This narrative meticulously examines the incidents, the aftermath, and their broader implications by analysing evidence and testimonials taken from all relevant sources, including media reports from main stream media, and ground-level observations by independent reporters.

Examining procedural lapses, judicial interpretations, and investigative pre-conceptions in the Nanded blasts case

Encounters in custody are shockingly common in India and can be said to be a result of the slow and dysfunctional judicial system of India. Often cases are seen to get delayed, evidence is destroyed or lost, witnesses turn hostile, and the defendants buy their freedom. But the response of the police by taking the law into their own hands is even more threatening for the judicial system in India. Encounters usually end with dead criminals and not at all scathed police, raising multiple questions as to the necessity of use of such force by the police.

After the Maharashtra Cabinet granted CM Fadnavis sole authority to appoint the new SEC days ago, Dinesh Waghmare, a 1994-batch IAS officer, takes charge as SEC on January 21. Waghmare served as the Principal Secretary of Medical Education and Drugs department with additional charge of Employment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra and resigned only after this appointment, a development that raises serious questions of a conflict of interest: the SC in 2021 has held that SECs have to be "independent persons" not occupying a post under the Centre or state governments

The recent Supreme Court judgement brings to attention the attempts made by the Centre over the past few years to dilute the powers of the one law that has the power to hold the Government accountable