Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Case Title: Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh Citation: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-2354 of 2019] Bench: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma Factual Matrix The Supreme Court addressed an appeal arising from a protracted dowry-related prosecution, where the appellant, Rajesh Chaddha, had been convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complainant, Mala Chaddha, had alleged persistent mental and physical harassment for dowry by her husband and in-laws. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the testimonies of the complainant and her father, with no corroborative medical or documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations of physical cruelty or miscarriage. Procedural History The trial court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 323/34 and 506 IPC due to lack of evidence but convicted him under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the...

  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction The writ jurisdiction under the Indian Constitution is a cornerstone of judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights. Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to issue writs for safeguarding constitutional and legal rights. Article 139 also authorizes the Supreme Court to issue writs in specific cases as provided by parliamentary legislation. This article provides a detailed legal analysis of the five writs – Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto – supported by authoritative judicial precedents and statutory interpretation. 1. Habeas Corpus Legal Principle: Habeas Corpus, meaning "you may have the body," is the most potent safeguard of personal liberty, compelling authorities to produce a detained individual before the court and justify the legality of the detention. Key Judicial Precedents: The Supreme Court has clarified that Habeas Corpus acts as a procedur...

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Supreme Court of India has revived a significant discussion on the administration of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), following its decision to suo motu proceed with a writ petition originally filed in 2015 by the late Prof. Shamnad Basheer. This move comes amid considerable criticism regarding the conduct of CLAT-UG 2025, with the highest court in the country expressing serious concerns about the quality and reliability of the examination process. Case Details and Bench The matter, registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 600 of 2015, is being heard by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih. The bench is also considering related petitions challenging the results and administration of the CLAT-UG 2025 exam, which was conducted in December 2024. Supreme Court’s Observations During the recent hearings, the Supreme Court voiced its dissatisfaction with the manner in which the CLAT examination has been managed by the Consortium of Nat...

Bombay High Court Intervenes in Citizenship Matter By Abhishek Jat,Advocate Introduction In a significant judicial determination addressing the critical issue of statelessness, the Bombay High Court recently deliberated upon the plight of a long-term resident whose citizenship application had been summarily dismissed by administrative authorities. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale, examined the complex interplay between immigration status, long-term residency, and the fundamental right against statelessness. Case Background The petition challenged an administrative order dated December 31, 2019, issued by the Deputy Collector (General) of Mumbai Suburban District, whereby the petitioner's application for Indian citizenship was rejected. The administrative authority had determined that the petitioner was a "stateless national" who had purportedly furnished inaccurate information regarding visa validity. The peti...

  Judicial Review on Extended Advertisements in Movie Theatres: A Consumer Rights Perspective By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the prolonged display of advertisements in multiplex cinemas, which allegedly causes inconvenience to moviegoers. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh deliberated on the issue and directed the authorities to engage in meaningful policy discussions before considering judicial intervention. The Court observed that time is a valuable resource, emphasizing the need for balanced policy measures. Background of the Petition The petitioner, a law student, raised concerns over the common practice of multiplex cinemas displaying extended advertisements before the commencement of movies. This practice, according to the petitioner, results in undue delays beyond the scheduled movie start time mentioned on tickets. The plea argued that moviegoe...

  Supreme Court Reinforces the Importance of Proper Property  Transfers: A Cautionary Tale for Buyers and Sellers By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a landmark judgment delivered on February 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of  M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. vs. J. Manjula & Ors.  (2025 INSC 273), has once again emphasized the critical importance of adhering to legal formalities in property transactions. The Court’s ruling serves as a stern reminder that shortcuts in property dealings, such as relying on unregistered documents or General Power of Attorney (GPA) transactions, can lead to severe legal consequences. This judgment reinforces the Court’s earlier stance in the 2012  Suraj Lamp  case, which had already warned against the perils of such informal property transfers. Background of the Case The dispute revolved around a property in Bangalore, originally owned by Muniyappa. In 1986, Muniyappa executed an unregistered agreement to se...