Two months ago, Judges 2-3-4-5 of the Indian Supreme Court wrote a long letter to the Chief Justice, complaining of assignment of Benches without any rational basis. Last Friday [*January 12, 2018*], The Judges called a Press Conference, irreversibly provoked by the Bench chosen by the Master of the Roster [The Chief Justice of India], to hear […]Read more "An Alleged Judicial Crisis on Swami Vivekananda’s 155"
An Advocate represented its Client before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and charged a fee of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs). The Tribunal awarded compensation. The Client was compelled to sign a further cheque, in favour of the Advocate, towards payment of a certain percentage of the decretal amount. That cheque stood dishonoured and the […]Read more "A Legally Enforceable Debt III"
Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman has now clarified it was a majority in The Triple Talaq Judgment (3 out of 5) that held arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness would apply to negate legislation under Article 14. “In so far as “manifest arbitrariness” is concerned, it is important to advert to the majority judgment of […]Read more "The Doctrine of Arbitrariness / Substantive Due Process III"
Amongst advocates, there are always the traditionalists. They imagine Live Tweeters in court when ADM Jabalpur was on going, and shiver at the thought. Ray CJI would have had none of it. The present Chief Justice seemingly does not subscribe to old world ideas. Juniors who have the time and the resources are travelling to the […]Read more "The Live Tweets Ailment II"
In George Leslie v. State of Kerala, AIR 1970 Ker 21 the term ‘Kuttikanam’ was explained as under: “In the Malayalam and English Dictionary by Rev. II. Gundert D. Ph. page 278, ‘Kuttikanam’ is defined as meaning ‘the price of timber; fee claimable by the owner for every tree cut down by the renter’. In ‘The […]Read more "Kuttikanam / Seigniorage"
Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra of the Allahabad High Court commenting on (Retd.) Justice Shyam Lal, in Nupur Talwar v. State of U.P., [Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2014]: “The Learned Trial Judge has prejudged things in his own fashion, drawn conclusions by embarking on erroneous analogy conjecturing to the brim on apparent facts telling a different […]Read more "The Finesse of a Trial Judge"
“In State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 790 a 3 Judge Bench of this Court held that an enactment could be struck down, if it is being challenged as violative of Article 14, only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause, equal protection clause or violative […]Read more "The Doctrine of Arbitrariness / Substantive Due Process II"