Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

  भारतीय दंड न्याय प्रणाली में BNSS 2023 के महत्वपूर्ण सुधार: एक विस्तृत विश्लेषणात्मक अध्ययन लेखक: अभिषेक जाट, अधिवक्ता प्रस्तावना भारतीय दंड न्याय प्रणाली में आमूलचूल परिवर्तन लाने के उद्देश्य से भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता (BNSS) 2023 में  महत्वपूर्ण सुधार किए गए हैं। ये सुधार पुरानी दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता (CrPC) की कमियों को दूर करने और न्याय प्रणाली को आधुनिक, कुशल तथा पारदर्शी बनाने के लिए किए गए हैं। प्रस्तुत लेख में इन सुधारों का विस्तृत विश्लेषण प्रस्तुत किया गया है। समयबद्ध विचारण (टाइम-बाउंड ट्रायल्स) धारा 258 और 346 : BNSS में पहली बार गंभीर अपराधों के लिए निश्चित समय-सीमा निर्धारित की गई है। जघन्य अपराधों (हाइनस ऑफेंसेज) के मामलों का निपटारा अब अधिकतम दो वर्षों के भीतर करना अनिवार्य किया गया है। इस प्रावधान का उद्देश्य न्यायिक प्रक्रिया में अनावश्यक विलंब को कम करना है, जिससे न्याय की त्वरित प्राप्ति सुनिश्चित हो सके। यह सुधार सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा हुसैनारा खातून बनाम बिहार राज्य (1979) मामले में दिए गए निर्णय के अनुरूप है, जिसमें न्यायालय ने कहा था कि "श...

Supreme Court Clarifies 'Degree' Definition in Food Safety Officer Recruitment Case By: Abhishek Jat, Advocate  In a significant ruling that impacts recruitment practices and interpretation of educational qualifications, the Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment clarifying that the term 'degree' encompasses bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees unless specifically excluded. The judgment came in the case of Chandra Shekhar Singh v. State of Jharkhand , wherein the apex court overturned a Jharkhand High Court order that had disqualified candidates holding master's degrees from applying for Food Safety Officer (FSO) positions. Case Background The controversy stemmed from a recruitment notification issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) on October 7, 2015, for the position of Food Safety Officers. The appellants, who possessed post-graduate qualifications in science with specializations in microbiology, food science, and...

Delhi High Court Issues 'Dynamic+' Injunction Against Unauthorized IPL 2025 Streaming By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Delhi High Court has taken a significant step in protecting intellectual property rights by granting a 'dynamic+' injunction in favor of Star India Private Limited. This order effectively restricts unauthorized entities from illegally broadcasting the TATA IPL 2025 matches, ensuring that the exclusive rights of the official broadcaster are upheld. Legal Dispute and Rights of the Plaintiff Star India, a prominent media entity, had obtained exclusive television and digital broadcasting rights for IPL matches in India from 2023 to 2027. These rights were conferred through an agreement with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The company alleged that several rogue websites were engaging in unauthorized streaming of IPL matches, which constituted a direct violation of its intellectual property rights. To combat this infringement, Star In...

  Judicial Duty to Safeguard Freedom of Expression Regardless of Content: Supreme Court's Stance Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction In a seminal judgment delivered on March 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in  Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat  (2025 INSC 410) reinforced the inviolability of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The case arose from the criminal prosecution of a Member of Parliament for reciting a poem deemed inflammatory by the Gujarat Police. The Court’s ruling not only quashed the FIR but also laid down critical principles to prevent the misuse of penal laws to suppress dissent, emphasizing the judiciary’s role as the ultimate protector of constitutional rights. Factual Background and Procedural History The appellant, Imran Pratapgadhi, a Rajya Sabha MP, attended a public event where he recited a poem advocating non-violent resistance to injustice. The poem, which contained lines like...

  Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Article 311: Appointing Authority Not Required to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Supreme Court has elucidated the scope of Article 311 of the Constitution, holding that while dismissal of a government servant requires the authority of the appointing body, initiation of disciplinary proceedings need not emanate from the same source. In a significant ruling that refines administrative jurisprudence, a Division Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan allowed an appeal by the State of Jharkhand, reversing the High Court's decision that had invalidated a government servant's dismissal on procedural grounds. Factual Matrix and Procedural History The respondent, a state employee, faced allegations of financial malfeasance, forgery, and dereliction of duty. In 2014, the Deputy Commissioner of Koderma initiated disciplinary proceedings, formulating a draft charge sheet containing nine counts o...

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal for Son's Eviction: Balancing Family Cohesion and Senior Citizens' Rights Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate  In a landmark judgment delivered on March 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal seeking the eviction of an eldest son from his parents' house, highlighting the delicate balance between protecting senior citizens' rights and preserving family unity. The Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti poignantly observed that "the very concept of 'family' is being eroded and we are on the brink of one person one family," despite India's cultural ethos of "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam." Background of the Case The case involved an elderly couple who had multiple children, including three sons and two daughters. The father, who owned a house and three shops, had distributed parts of his property among his daughters and son-in-law through gift and sale deeds. However, dis...

Madras High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail to Kunal Kamra in Mumbai Police FIR  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Madras High Court has extended interim anticipatory bail to stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra until April 7, 2025, in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him at the Khar Police Station in Mumbai. The allegations pertain to remarks made by Kamra in his recent satirical performance, which purportedly targeted Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. The Court directed Kamra to furnish a bail bond before the jurisdictional magistrate as a precondition for securing relief. Legal Context and Grounds for Relief Despite the FIR being lodged in Mumbai, Kamra, a resident of Tamil Nadu, sought refuge under the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. His counsel, Advocate V. Suresh, presented an urgent plea highlighting the grave threats to Kamra’s safety following the publication of his stand-up routine titled Naya Bharat . The Court...

  Abetment of Rape: Madhya Pradesh High Court Clarifies Legal Position on Women's Liability By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that while a woman cannot be charged with committing rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), she can be held liable for abetment of the offense under Section 109 IPC. The decision, delivered in Prashant Gupta v. State of M.P., Criminal Revision No. 4796 of 2023 , underscores the legal distinction between direct commission and facilitation of an offense, particularly in cases involving sexual crimes. Background of the Case The case arose from a criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, wherein charges had been framed under Sections 376 read with 34, 190, and 506-II IPC. The accused sought modification of the charges, arguing that the framing o...

  Delhi High Court Upholds Rule 9B: No Senior Advocate Designation for Retired Judicial Officers from Other States By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, reaffirmed the validity of Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024. The decision effectively restricts the eligibility for Senior Advocate designation to retired judicial officers exclusively from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS), thereby excluding their counterparts from other states. This verdict was delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in the case of Vijai Pratap Singh v. Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 2045/2025 , decided on March 27, 2025. Background of the Case The petitioner, a retired judicial officer with extensive experience in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (HJS), challenged Rule 9B on the grounds of arbitrariness and discrimination. He contended that the rule c...