A Bengaluru court has rejected a defamation complaint against Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah for his Assembly remarks that “most of those committing crimes are from RSS and Bajrang Dal.” The court ruled the statements are protected under constitutional privilege and no personal reputation was harmed.
A Chief Judicial Magistrate’s iPhone 14 was stolen at Mumbai’s Wankhede Stadium during an IPL match on April 18 while he was entering with his family. He realized the theft after entering the stadium and promptly filed an online complaint. Police are investigating the matter by reviewing CCTV footage and interviewing witnesses.
The Kerala High Court Bar Association raised concerns over a WhatsApp group leaking sensitive judicial information, including court orders. The group, comprising judges, lawyers, and journalists, was accused of undermining judicial integrity. The association requested an investigation and emphasized the need for stricter controls on communication within the legal system.
The Kerala High Court ordered 28 lawyers to provide free legal services as a remedy for their contempt of court, after they apologized for shouting abusive slogans against a Chief Judicial Magistrate. The court found their apology insufficient and proposed this measure, which the lawyers accepted while ensuring their right to practice law.
An official from Patanjali and two others sentenced to six months in jail after their Soan Papdi product failed a quality test. The District Food Safety Officer collected samples following concerns, leading to legal action. The court imposed fines on the individuals and the company. This incident highlights food safety and regulatory compliance issues in the industry.
The Supreme Court clarified that the three-month timeline for assessing juveniles accused of serious crimes is not mandatory but advisory. The decision allows for extensions with a reasoned order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, emphasizing the importance of a preliminary assessment involving experienced professionals. The ruling aims to balance accountability and fair treatment for juvenile offenders.
Today, 26th April, The Supreme Court instructed the Gujarat High Court Registry to provide a response regarding the promotion of judicial officers to Additional District Judges. This directive follows a legal petition seeking clarity and transparency in the promotion process. The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal guidelines in judicial appointments. The Supreme Court’s involvement highlights its role in upholding the integrity of the judiciary.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the limitations of a Judicial Magistrate’s authority in handling protest petitions. The ruling, delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, emerged from a case involving a Chief Judicial Magistrate who initially took cognizance of one accused for murder based on a final […]
