High Courts Must Check S. 313 CrPC/S.351 BNSS Compliance At Earliest To Avoid Acquittals: Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/high-courts-must-check-s-313-crpcs351-bnss-compliance-at-earliest-to-avoid-acquittals-supreme-court-290017

'Sharia Court', 'Court Of Kazi' Etc Have No Legal Recognition; Their Directions Not Binding: Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sharia-court-court-of-kazi-etc-have-no-legal-recognition-their-directions-not-binding-supreme-court-290579

Applicability of Section
125(4) Cr.P.C. to the case on hand. The question as to whether non- compliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by a wife would be sufficient in itself to deny her maintenance, owing to Section 125(4) Cr.P.C, has been addressed by several High Courts but no consistent view is forthcoming, as their opinions were varied and conflicting.

Rina kumari v Dinesh Kumar Mahato 2025

PERIYAMMAL
versus
V. RAJAMANI

Execution proceedings should not be used to re-litigate issues already decided in the suit. The executing court’s role is limited to ensuring the decree is executed, not to question its validity. The judgment underscores the importance of timely execution of decrees and prevents parties from frustrating decrees through collusive claims raised during execution proceedings. It reaffirms the principle that executing courts cannot go behind the decree or re-adjudicate issues already decided in the suit. The Court issued directions to all High Courts to monitor and expedite the disposal of pending execution petitions, emphasizing the need to avoid delays in the execution of decrees. The Court reiterated the need for expeditious disposal of execution proceedings, directing all High Courts to ensure pending execution petitions are decided within six months.

#CPC@CurrentLegalGK

Acquitted After Noose : Supreme Court Upheld No Death Sentence In 2025, But Acquittals Came After Years On Death Row
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/acquitted-after-noose-supreme-court-upheld-no-death-sentence-in-2025-but-acquittals-came-after-years-on-death-row-514525

Suspension Of Kuldeep Singh Sengar's Sentence In Unnao Rape Case Is Legally Flawed & Problematic
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/kuldeep-singh-sengars-sentence-suspension-in-unnao-rape-case-is-legally-flawed-514451

Fingerprints are not unique.

https://indiandefencereview.com/ai-proves-fingerprints-are-not-unique/

#Question@CurrentLegalGK

Can Criminal courts (including HC) direct investigative agency to arrest the accused?

X Corp Can't Challenge Indian Laws Regulating Social Media Invoking 'Citizen Centric' Article 19: Karnataka High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/x-corp-karnataka-high-court-article-19-indian-laws-regulating-social-media-305375

X CORP AND Union of India & Others

Platform X sought declaration section 79(3)(b) of IT act that it does not empower government to pass blocking orders rather 69A does therefore the impugned rule and portal is ultra vires to act and Article 19 (1)(a).

Held: X platform is a mere intermediary in IT act and nothing else and only citizens can use Article 19.

Can Indian Companies claim Article 19?

STAR INDIA Ltd. v. TRAI 2007

Yes with condition that majority of control and management vests with indian citizens and company incorporated in India.

Consequences: Citizens using such platforms are getting deprived of Article 19 although they can individually approach the court but the blocking orders are not public.

Digital constitutional crossbroder issue

#IT@CurrentLegalGK

Round Up 2025| Supreme Court Judgments On Judicial Service
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/round-up-2025-supreme-court-judgments-on-judicial-service-516095

Ten Landmark Arbitration Judgments Of 2025
https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/ten-landmark-arbitration-judgments-of-2025-514376

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/acting-on-sixth-sense-supreme-court-facilitates-marriage-quashes-rape-conviction-over-false-marriage-promise-516256

Quashing of Rape

As India’s law enforcement agencies turn to AI, the potential benefits, risks 🔗
#express_explained

Complainant In S.138 NI Act Case Can File Appeal Against Acquittal As 'Victim' Under S.372 Proviso CrPC : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/complainant-cheque-dishonour-s138-ni-act-case-appeal-acquittal-victim-under-s372-proviso-crpc-supreme-court-294334

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK
#NIA@CurrentLegalGK

Supreme Court stays its recent verdict on Aravalli, says clarification necessary
https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-stays-its-recent-verdict-on-aravalli-says-clarification-necessary

Two cases within fortnight.

👥

"Public Trust In The Judiciary: A Pillar Of Democracy" – Justice BR Gavai

Duty of the Judiciary to ensure that faith of the people is not shaken: Justice MR Shah

🧠

‘Judges must uphold constitutional morality, not be swayed by popular opinion’—retd SC judge AS Oka

Judges Should Be Free To Decide By Law Not By Popular Opinion, The Terms Like "Judicial Barbarism" Must Be Condemned: Law Minister

"judicial verdicts cannot be the reflection of the influence of public opinion" JB pardiwala, J

1. Aravalli.
2. Unnao rape.

Both were heavily criticised and supreme court agreed to consider it again.

Earlier this happenned with Stray dog cases, Post facto environment clearance.

This somewhat shows that SC is now getting influenced (good or bad) by the constructive criticism brought by civilians via media channels.

Yes even sub judice matters can be criticised and this is the impact whether this is good accountability of judiciary to people or it is bad influence by public opinion rather than settled law, will be decided on "case to case basis" but one thing is sure the larger the protest the more SC/HCs will focus upon the matter....

Judges must take these decisions of protest they are of heavy violation and requires confidence to be idntilled in public but they must not decide on populist opinion but on merits, one or two occasional cases in a month of this nature are not new and will not impact other cases as we have thousands, lakhs and crores of pendency feom top to ground level judiciary.

There is no conflict in law all is harmoniously decided and eventually becomes harmonious conflict the limit of law 🙂

@CurrentLegalGK

https://www.thehindu.com/education/higher-education-regulation-refining-the-heci-bill-2025-for-nep-2020-implementation/article70334931.ece

Right to quality education Article 21A

#History@CurrentLegalGK

The Adversarial system was not known in India. In the Hindu or the Mohamedan system the judge took an active role in eliciting the truth as in the Continental systems. The theory of the common law " that justice can best be achieved by giving each party the fullest opportunity to present his own case " was brought into vogue in India by the English. The Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes of India and the law of evidence enacted in the latter half of the nineteenth century are in conformity with this common law doctrine.