Criminal Law

And the Supreme Court has once again sent a firm reminder: A rape survivor’s name is not a courtroom detail. It is legally protected. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukum Chand @ Monu, the Supreme Court dealt with a deeply significant issue — public disclosure of the identity of a rape victim. The judgment […]

Supreme Court clarifies: capping life imprisonment at 20 years without remission does not curtail the convict’s right to release after serving that judicially fixed term In Monu Jayrambhai Tajpariya v. State of Gujarat, (2026) 2 SCC 398, the Supreme Court clarified that where a court imposes life imprisonment with a fixed non-remittable term of 20

In the landmark case of Parameshwari v. State of T.N. (2026), the Supreme Court sent a thunderous message to high courts across India: Victim compensation is not a “get-out-of-jail-free” card. In June 2009, two individuals armed with knives brutally assaulted a victim in Tamil Nadu due to prior enmity, inflicting four life-threatening stab wounds. The Trial Court

In Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2026 SCC OnLine SC 208), the Supreme Court stepped in decisively and invoked Article 32 of the Constitution to grant bail after finding that successive FIRs were being used to defeat earlier bail orders. The pattern was unmistakable This is not just a bail order. This is

The Supreme Court just clarified this in Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026).Compensation is not a shortcut to avoid punishment. It cannot trivialize the offence. Sentencing must balance Gravity of offence, Impact on victim, Circumstances of accused, Societal interest. Compensation can supplement justice. but cannot substitute accountability in serious crimes. Parameshwari v State of

Case Comment “What if I told you a statement made in police custody is usually inadmissible but one small part of it can still convict you?” That’s exactly what the Supreme Court clarified in Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026).” This case revisits Section 27 of the Evidence Act -the narrow exception that allows

The Supreme Court has sent a clear message:Freedom of speech is not a favour — it is a Fundamental Right Duty of Police to Uphold Freedom of Speech: Supreme Court Clarifies in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2026)Article 19(1)(a) and Articles 12, 21, 51-A(a), 32 and 226 Fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression— Duty of

The case arose from the murder of political leader Ramavatar Jaggi in 2003. The State police initially registered an FIR and filed a charge sheet; however, due to dissatisfaction expressed by the victim’s family, the investigation was later transferred to the CBI, which filed a fresh charge sheet implicating, among others, Amit Jogi. The trial

In the instant matter, the petitioners are engaged in the business of buying and selling gold ornaments, gold bars, coins and precious stones and have been carrying on such business in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. In July 2024, a company named Dallas E-com Infotech Private Limited (“the Customer”) approached the petitioners for

The Supreme Court held that timelines imposed by High Courts to conclude investigations are the exception rather than the norm. It held that Courts must respect the practical realities of investigations and should only impose deadlines in situations where inaction would lead to adverse consequences. In this case, three individuals approached the Allahabad High Court