Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the vires of the Notification dated 13-8-2025, issued by the Home (General) Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (’GNCTD’), with the approval of the Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor.
“Unless the Accused is granted a fair opportunity to defend his interest in a fair trial, an order of conviction would stand vitiated merely on such count.”
“The accused is entitled to a fair opportunity to disprove the allegations against him. Denial of access to forensic comparison in the face of specific electronic material forming part of defence evidence amounts to curtailment of such a right.”
It is evident that the lack of effective legal representation has not only violated the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution but also seriously prejudiced his defence in the case.
“The law… does not permit a retrospective resurrection of childhood once the individual steps into legal adulthood; and to permit otherwise would be to dilute the doctrinal rigour of age-based legal classifications and introduce subjectivity into a domain that demands exactitude.”
The Court cautioned respondent 4 (Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs Department) to remain “alive to his duty” to file a proper and complete affidavit.
The Court noted that although courts generally refrain from interfering in government policy, they are constitutionally obligated to intervene when such decisions infringe upon rights like access to justice or fair trial.
“The then SP Datia has no regards for the law of land, and he is in habit of functioning as a Police Officer according to his own whims and wishes, thereby giving a complete go-by to the law of the land.”
“Right to fair trial, presumption of innocence unless proven guilty and proof by the prosecution of its case beyond any reasonable doubt are the fundamentals of our criminal jurisprudence.”
“Section 482 CrPC, 1973, iterates the inherent power of the Court, which is extraordinary in nature and assiduously to be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to serve the ends of justice.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court opined that Section 243 of the CrPC nowhere bars the investigating officer of cross-case to appear on behalf of accused in the case in which he is a complainant.
Supreme Court: In a case where the Court was dealing with the violation of the provisions of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and Prateek Jalan, J. addressed the grievance of international athletes who challenged
The Commission takes suo-motu cognizance of the matter and directs the issuance of notice to the Director-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh calling
European Court of Human Rights: The Seven-Judge Bench comprising of Yonko Grozev (President), Angelika Nußberger, André Potocki, Síofra O’Leary, M?rti?š Mits, Gabriele