Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

    Illegal Arrest under BNSS, 2023: Constitutional Limits, Written Grounds of Arrest, and the Continuing Relevance of Habeas Corpus Anil Kumar Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:442 Decision Date: 07 January 2026 Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior Coram: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia & Justice Ashish Shroti I. Introduction: Arrest Power in the Post-BNSS Criminal Justice System The enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) represents a structural transformation of India’s criminal procedure. However, statutory transition does not imply constitutional dilution. The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anil Kumar Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh stands as a firm reminder that arrest remains a constitutionally regulated power , bounded by the guarantees of Articles 21 and 22(1) . This decision assumes particular importance as one of the earliest High Court rulings to comprehe...

Supreme Court Invalidates Preventive Detention of Law Student Under NSA By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The appellant, a law student, was subjected to preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) by the District Magistrate, Betul, Madhya Pradesh, through an order dated 11 July 2024. This order was subsequently extended four times, with the final extension valid until 12 July 2025. The detention was premised on the appellant’s alleged involvement in nine criminal matters, including the current case. Out of the previous eight cases, the appellant had been acquitted in five, convicted with only a fine in one, and was on bail in two pending matters. In the present case (Crime No. 236 of 2024), bail was granted on 28 January 2025, but the appellant remained incarcerated solely due to the preventive detention order. Legal Issues and Arguments Scope of Section 3(2) of NSA: Section 3(2) empowers the government to detain individuals to prevent acts prejudicial to t...

 By Abhishek Jat, Advocate Justice Surya Kant, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India and the next Chief Justice-designate, recently delivered a series of significant addresses in Washington State, USA, focusing on the evolving landscape of judicial appointments and the role of technology in the legal system. Speaking at Seattle University’s Roundglass India Centre, Justice Kant openly acknowledged the ongoing debate over the collegium system, which governs the selection and transfer of judges in India’s higher judiciary. While he recognized that the system is not without its flaws, he firmly maintained that it remains a vital mechanism for upholding the independence of the judiciary by shielding it from external, particularly executive, influence. Justice Kant emphasized that recent reforms and transparency initiatives by the Supreme Court reflect a growing commitment to public accountability and trust in the judicial process. In his remarks, Justice Kant stressed the impor...

  Judicial Shield: Kerala High Court's Landmark Defense of Advocate-Client Privilege Against Investigative Overreach By Abhishek Jat,Advocate In a precedent-setting ruling that resonates throughout India's legal landscape, the Kerala High Court has delivered a comprehensive judgment safeguarding the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to advocates. The March 27, 2025 decision in W.P.(Crl.) No. 363 OF 2025 addresses a troubling instance where investigative authorities attempted to penetrate the sacred domain of advocate-client communications, raising profound questions about the boundaries of police powers and the independence of the legal profession. The Unprecedented Summons: Factual Matrix The controversy originated when the petitioner, a practicing advocate with over two decades of experience, found himself served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The notice demanded his appearance before police auth...

  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...

  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...

  P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994): A Landmark Judgment on Mental Health and Decriminalization of Suicide Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction The case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) stands as a seminal decision in Indian constitutional law, particularly in the realm of mental health and criminal jurisprudence. This ruling by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India questioned the constitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalized attempted suicide. By interpreting the scope of fundamental rights, the Court took a progressive step toward decriminalizing suicide attempts, highlighting the necessity of a humane approach to mental health concerns. Historical and Legal Background Section 309 of the IPC, a relic of colonial legislation, imposed criminal sanctions on individuals who attempted suicide. The provision was inherited from British legal frameworks, which traditionally viewed suicide as an offense against the state. However...