Lawkul, Delhi (2026)

12/08/2025

The Supreme Court has ordered the removal of all stray dogs from Delhi’s roads, directing that they be relocated to designated dog shelters. The Court warned of penal consequences under Section 188 of the IPC for anyone who obstructs this exercise.

This ruling stems from concerns over public safety and animal welfare, aiming to prevent accidents and address disease control. The Court's directive urges municipal authorities to implement a humanely managed solution to regulate stray dog populations.

Key Takeaways:

Stray dogs must be relocated to shelters—not culled or ignored

Obstruction by individuals may result in legal punishment

Emphasizes balance between civic order and animal rights

12/08/2025

The Supreme Court has emphasized that High Court judges are constitutionally equal to its judges and that the Supreme Court does not wield administrative control over the High Courts.

Chief Justice B.R. Gavai clarified that the Supreme Court’s role is limited to judicial review, not administrative oversight. He stated that the Supreme Court must offer protection to High Court judges when they face scandalous or baseless allegations, rather than interfere in court administration.

This ruling reinforces the independence and dignity of High Court judges and underlines the federal structure of India’s judiciary.

12/08/2025

The Madras High Court has ordered the commencement of trial in the ₹100 crore defamation suit filed by former Indian cricket captain MS Dhoni in 2014. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan has appointed an advocate commissioner to record Dhoni’s evidence at a mutually agreed location in Chennai, between October 20 and December 10, 2025, to avoid public chaos due to his celebrity status.

Dhoni’s suit targets Zee Media Corporation, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, retired IPS officer G. Sampath Kumar, and News Nation Network for alleged defamatory links to the 2013 IPL betting scandal. The Court took note of Dhoni’s affidavit requesting timely trial proceedings and his cooperation during examination.

11/08/2025

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that contractual female employees are entitled to receive maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961—just like regular employees. The court held that denying such benefits based solely on the nature of employment is discriminatory and contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law .

Justice Aman Chaudhary emphasized that the Maternity Benefit Act is a welfare statute designed to protect working women during pregnancy and motherhood. Discriminating against contractual employees on that basis is unconstitutional .

The ruling was issued in a case filed by a clinic assistant working on contract at an Aam Aadmi clinic in Bathinda. Despite her approved maternity leave and return to duty post-delivery, her request to rejoin was denied. The court referenced a Supreme Court precedent—Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll)—which establishes maternity leave rights for contract and daily-wage employees, reinforcing the principle of equality .

In light of this, the court quashed the rejection of her reinstatement, affirming that contractual employees cannot be stripped of their statutory rights due to their appointment status.

11/08/2025

Former Supreme Court judge Justice K.M. Joseph stated that attempting to remove the word "secularism" from India’s Preamble would be a mischievous act, since the country fundamentally remains secular without that explicit term. Speaking at Government Law College, Ernakulam, during a lecture on whether removing secularism and socialism from the Preamble is justified, he warned that the real threat comes when politicians exploit religion for power—not from religion itself. He also noted that India’s Constitution mandates a secular and inclusive nation.

---

28/07/2025

The Calcutta High Court has clarified that only official licensing authorities have the power to suspend, revoke, or impound a driving licence. Traffic police personnel do not have the legal authority to cancel or confiscate licences issued by regional transport offices, even in cases of alleged serious offences.

The judgment was delivered on July 21, 2025, while hearing a petition filed by a driver whose licence had been impounded by police. The Court held that there is no statutory provision in the Motor Vehicles Act or related rules that gives traffic police the power to revoke or suspend licences on their own. Only the authority that issued the licence can take administrative action against it.

The Court emphasized that in cases involving dangerous driving, rash actions, or traffic violations, the police can register FIRs and prosecute offenders—but must leave formal licence actions to licensing offices via proper administrative procedures.

This ruling safeguards driver rights and reinforces the clear separation of powers between enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies, ensuring due process and legal certainty.

28/07/2025

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval over Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah’s apology in the case related to his objectionable remarks against Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi during Operation Sindoor. The Court said the apology lacked sincerity and indicated it made the Court more suspicious of his intentions. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by an officer from outside Madhya Pradesh has been formed to probe the case.

The SIT has recorded 87 statements so far and will submit its final report by August 13. The Court stayed Shah’s arrest for now but directed full cooperation from his side.

The Court also rejected a plea seeking Shah’s removal from ministerial post but directed the SIT to consider incidents mentioned in that petition during its investigation. The next hearing is scheduled for August 18.

24/07/2025

The Supreme Court has stayed the Bombay High Court’s judgment acquitting all twelve individuals in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. However, the Court clarified that the accused need not return to prison until a final decision is made on the High Court’s judgment.

A bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and S. Abdul Nazeer noted that while the acquittal order is officially stayed, the matter will be heard on merits at a later date. Until then, the status quo stands: the accused will not be re-arrested or detained.

The special bench at Bombay High Court had acquitted all 12—five of whom were sentenced to death and seven to life imprisonment—citing insufficient evidence, questionable witness testimony, dubious confessions, and improper linkage of recovered explosives to the blasts.

By staying this order, the Apex Court has kept the prosecution’s challenge alive and maintained that further examination of the evidence is required.

This interim order addresses a sensitive situation: balancing the accused’s liberty against the right to a full appellate hearing. If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the acquittal, it will be final, and the accused will retain their freedom.

The next hearing date has not been announced.

24/07/2025

Jamiat Ulema‑i‑Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Centre’s order allowing the release of Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder after six minor edits. Madani alleges the film vilifies the entire Muslim community and claims the Centre’s changes are superficial and fail to address deeper biases.

He argues that the film’s producer, Amit Jani, is linked to communal propaganda through past actions—including vandalism and threats—which suggests political motivations rather than artistic intent. Madani points out that the film relies on tropes framing all Muslim characters as deceitful or violent, implying they act at the behest of an “enemy state,” and crosses the line into hate speech, not protected by Article 19(1)(a).

Madani also raises procedural objections, noting that the expert panel reviewing edits included CBFC members and BJP‑affiliated individuals again, compromising impartiality. He contends Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act does not permit conditional certification and that even the six edits made are largely symbolic.

He requests a private screening before the Court and urges judicial scrutiny to prevent communal discord. The case has been listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi.

22/07/2025

The Supreme Court has allowed the government to claim over ₹20 lakh in rent from former MLA Santhosh Kumar Reddy for overstaying in a Kolkata government residence. The mutating demand relates to his use of the property for five years after his term ended.

A bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul noted that continued occupancy of official quarters without permission is unacceptable. The Court held that “one shouldn’t hold on to government accommodation endlessly” and must either vacate or formalize tenancy under official rent rules.

The decision upholds the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs rules that require occupants to either surrender the property within 90 days of ceasing office or apply for tenancy by paying standard market rent.

---

📍 Date of Order: July 21, 2025
👤 Defaulter: Ex‑MLA Santhosh Kumar Reddy
💰 Rent Demand: Over ₹20 lakh
📌 Legal Principle: No indefinite occupancy; follow formal tenancy or vacate within 90 days

Lawkul

12/08/2025

12/08/2025

12/08/2025

11/08/2025

11/08/2025

28/07/2025

28/07/2025

24/07/2025

24/07/2025

22/07/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request