Law & Justice

Court says K.A. Najeeb cannot be reduced either to a “mathematical formula” mandating bail solely due to delay or to a hollow constitutional safeguard overridden entirely by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA

The judgment restores the constitutional framework laid down in KA Najeeb and cautions against treating anti-terror bail restrictions as a basis for indefinite pre-trial detention

Part II turns its attention to Western India: Mumbai, the rest of Maharashtra, and the long shadow of the Western Ghats where from sound coastal-zone jurisprudence, the High Court has been asked to, and has, permitted successive ‘infrastructure’ projects that have touched coasts, mangroves and the urban forest.

Relying on ASI findings, historical records and the Ayodhya framework, the Court held the structure was built over a pre-existing temple and Sanskrit learning centre linked to Raja Bhoj

Given the flip-flops by India’s constitutional courts on protection of the environment, this three part legal investigation delves deep: In Part 1, we look at how High Courts across different regions of India are contributing to, or departing from, the trajectory of environmental jurisprudence. This part looks at Central India: Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Jharkhand. A region that is home to some of the country’s richest forests, its most significant mineral reserves, and its most vulnerable tribal populations.

While granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, the Supreme Court on Monday, May 19, observed that UAPA conviction rates stand between 1.5% and 4% nationally, while remaining below 1% in Jammu and Kashmir.

Granting bail to a J&K man jailed for nearly six years in a narco-terror case, the Supreme Court cited abysmally low UAPA conviction rates, and warned that prolonged incarceration under anti-terror laws cannot override Article 21 protections

Petitioner attributes delay in challenging 2018 ex parte FT opinion to financial incapacity, and absence of legal aid; Court says if a case for fresh hearing is made out, it should be considered “immediately”

Setting aside a Foreigners Tribunal order against five children, the High Court ruled that kinship alone cannot determine citizenship status and reiterated that every individual must face an independent legal reference before being declared a foreigner

Across two days of intense legal arguments, the Supreme Court scrutinising the 2023 Act governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, as petitioners argued that replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Union Minister creates a "Home Umpire" system, while the Bench questioned the limits of parliamentary power, counsel warned that executive dominance over the "referee" of democracy threatens the basic structure of free and fair elections