The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, threatens the autonomy of India's legal profession by allowing government control over the Bar Council of India. With provisions enabling political interference and restricting lawyers' rights, the bill has sparked strong resistance.

The doctrine of transferred malice holds that intent to harm one person applies even if another is harmed instead. Recognized under Section 301 IPC (now Section 102 BNS), it ensures criminal liability despite unintended victims.

The Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) ruled the arrest unconstitutional, citing violations of Article 22(1). It held that merely informing the accused’s wife does not fulfill legal requirements, reinforcing safeguards against unlawful detention.

The Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) merges the security of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) with the flexibility of the New Pension Scheme (NPS). It offers assured pensions, inflation protection, and family benefits, balancing employee welfare with fiscal sustainability.

The Supreme Court in Smt. N. Usha Rani & Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025) upheld maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., ruling that even in a void marriage, a woman is entitled to financial support if separation from her first husband is evident and prevents destitution.

The Union Budget 2025-26 prioritizes MSMEs, infrastructure, and digital transformation. Key highlights include enhanced credit access, tax relief, manufacturing incentives, and green energy investments, fostering inclusive growth and positioning India for a resilient future.

The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s ruling that intellectual property loss qualifies for compensation under the SC/ST Act. This landmark decision expands the definition of property, ensuring greater protection for marginalized scholars facing caste-based discrimination.

In Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court upheld burial rights as integral to dignity under Article 21, balancing equality and secularism with public order. The split verdict addressed constitutional principles versus adherence to statutory rules.

The article explores the interplay between the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, focusing on Section 13 and Section 37, judicial interpretations, and the need for clarity to ensure minimal interference and efficient dispute resolution.

The Supreme Court upheld the right to dignity in death, ruling that burial rights cannot be denied based on religion or conversion. It emphasized secularism, equality, and Article 21, reaffirming that dignity extends beyond life and discrimination is unconstitutional.

In Parsvnath Developers v. Brig. Devendra Singh Yadav, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the "seat" of arbitration determines court jurisdiction, not the "venue," and an Order VII Rule 10 CPC order is non-appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court in Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. held that disputes concerning title and validity of transactions fall under civil court jurisdiction, as such matters are beyond the scope of the SARFAESI Act. Partial rejection of plaints is impermissible.

The Supreme Court in Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. held that complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before 20th July 2020 must remain in the same forum despite revised pecuniary limits under CPA 2019, ensuring continuity and fairness.

In Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, overturning convictions under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC. Key issues included a delayed FIR, lack of coercion, and insufficient evidence, leading to doubts about the prosecution's claims.

The Director General under the Competition Act, 2002, investigates anti-competitive practices through powers like summoning individuals, accessing records, and conducting search and seizure. Landmark cases highlight the DG's pivotal role in safeguarding fair competition and consumer welfare.

The appreciation and admissibility of evidence in India are governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This study examines key principles, judicial interpretations, and challenges shaping the role of evidence in ensuring justice.

Review, Revision, and Appeal are pivotal remedies in the Indian legal framework, designed to address judicial errors and ensure fairness. By examining their distinct purposes, statutory foundations, and judicial interpretations, they uphold justice and procedural integrity.

The execution of decrees under Order XXI CPC ensures judicial decisions are enforced effectively. Modes include delivery of property, attachment, arrest, receivership, partition, and monetary payments, upholding the rule of law and ensuring substantive justice.

The doctrines of arrest and attachment before judgment, codified under Order XXXVIII of the CPC, are safeguards to secure justice by preventing evasion or dissipation of assets. Courts apply these extraordinary measures with caution, balancing fairness and procedural integrity.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers courts to issue commissions under Section 75 and Order XXVI. These commissions address complex legal issues, gather evidence, and ensure procedural efficiency, aiding justice through specialized investigations and impartial reports.

Custody, as a cornerstone of the criminal justice system, ensures accountability while balancing individual rights. This analysis examines custody provisions under BNSS and CrPC, exploring judicial safeguards, reforms, and challenges to prevent abuse and uphold justice.

The Supreme Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Bhonsle (2024) held that courts must confidently reject plaints under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC if barred by limitation, stressing that clever drafting can't bypass statutory deadlines.

John Doe orders address challenges posed by anonymity in legal disputes, particularly in intellectual property rights. Originating in English law, these orders empower courts globally to act against unidentified defendants, balancing rights with enforcement.

The proposal to criminalize ecocide as an international crime marks a pivotal shift in global justice. By recognizing large-scale environmental harm as a violation of planetary rights, it seeks to deter destruction, ensure accountability, and champion ecological integrity.

The Mimansa principles, rooted in ancient Indian jurisprudence, offer timeless methodologies for statutory interpretation. Balancing textual fidelity with ethical reasoning, they harmonize tradition and modernity, enriching contemporary legal frameworks and advancing equity.