Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

  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...

  Supreme Court Emphasizes Magistrates' Duty to Verify Complaints Before Issuing Summons By Advocate Abhishek Jat The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has reiterated that magistrates must diligently ascertain the veracity of complaints before initiating criminal proceedings against an accused. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized that the act of recording the complainant’s statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or its corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Section 227, is not a mere formality but a crucial step in determining the truthfulness of the allegations. Context of the Case The case arose from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), pertaining to cheque dishonor. The complainant, a cooperative society, alleged that the appellant had defaulted on a loan repayment, leading to the dishonor...

  Supreme Court Upholds Fundamental Right to Be Informed of Arrest Grounds Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a landmark ruling reinforcing constitutional protections against arbitrary detention, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the fundamental right of every arrested individual to be informed of the grounds for their arrest. Delivered on February 7, this judgment underscores the significance of due process and procedural fairness as enshrined under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The ruling emphasizes that any deviation from this constitutional mandate vitiates the arrest and can have significant legal consequences, including the grant of bail even in cases where statutory restrictions apply. A division bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and N. Kotiswar Singh delved into the essential safeguards provided by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the procedural requirements stipulated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court ...

Supreme Court Mandates Unconditional Apology from Seoni Bar Association Members Over Strike Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Supreme Court of India has directed senior members of the Seoni District Bar Association, Madhya Pradesh, to submit an unconditional apology following their participation in a lawyers' strike in March 2024. The protest stemmed from dissatisfaction over the state government's decision to allocate land for a new District Court Complex without consulting the legal fraternity. This ruling underscores the Apex Court’s firm stance against disruptions in judicial proceedings due to strikes by legal professionals. Background of the Case The case arose when the Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed disciplinary action on ten lawyers from the Seoni District Bar Association, barring them from appearing in court for one month and preventing them from contesting Bar Association and Bar Council elections for three years. The penalty was a response to their call for a thr...

  Supreme Court Reaffirms Uniform Multiplier Principle in Motor Accident Claims: Foreign Earnings No Ground for Reduction Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate Introduction In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India in Shyam Prasad Nagalla & Ors. v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2324 of 2025, arising out of SLP(C) No. 818/2025) has reaffirmed that the multiplier method used in motor accident compensation cases must be determined strictly based on the age of the deceased victim and cannot be reduced merely because the victim was earning in foreign currency. The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra overturned the Telangana High Court’s decision, which had incorrectly reduced the multiplier from 14 to 10 on the basis that the deceased was earning in US dollars. The judgment underscores the principle of uniformity in applying multipliers and prevents courts from making arbitrary reducti...

Failure to Acknowledge Section 80 CPC Notice: Supreme Court's Ruling on Adverse Inference Against the Government Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors. , examined the implications of a government authority’s failure to respond to a statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Court underscored the importance of acknowledging and responding to such notices, stating that inaction could lead to an adverse inference against the government in litigation. Context of the Case The case revolved around a land dispute in Andhra Pradesh, where the appellants claimed ownership of a 3.34-acre parcel of land. The appellants contended that they had been in uninterrupted possession since 1970, supported by Pattadar Passbooks issued under the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and land reve...

  Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case: Examining Consent and the Promise of Marriage Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Jothiragawan v. State , rendered a significant judgment emphasizing the distinction between a consensual relationship and an allegation of rape based on a purported breach of a promise to marry. The bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, allowed the appeal against the Madras High Court's refusal to quash the FIR registered under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Background of the Case The case arose from allegations made by the complainant, wherein she contended that the appellant had engaged in sexual intercourse with her on three occasions under the false pretext of marriage. She claimed that the accused initially forced himself upon her and subsequently assured her of marriage, which he later refused. The complainant further alleged coercion in subsequen...