Today, On 27th February, The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, upheld equal rights in arrests under GST and Customs laws. Chief Justice Khanna emphasized the need for fairness and procedural safeguards in tax-related arrests. The judgment ensures that individuals accused under these laws receive equal legal protection. This ruling is expected to impact future enforcement and safeguard constitutional rights.
Today, On 27th February, The Supreme Court is set to deliver a crucial verdict on the scope of arrest powers under GST and Customs laws. This decision will clarify whether tax authorities can arrest individuals for alleged evasion without prior adjudication. The ruling is expected to impact businesses and individuals facing tax investigations. It will also shape the future enforcement of indirect tax laws in India.
The Delhi High Court set aside earlier guidelines issued to trial courts regarding victim compensation. It ruled that requiring the accused or convict to submit an affidavit disclosing their assets and liabilities violates constitutional and statutory rights. The judgment emphasizes the need to balance victims’ rights with the legal protections afforded to the accused. This decision could impact the approach trial courts take in compensation-related matters.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that failing to appear in response to a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC is a stand-alone offence under Section 174A of the IPC. This offence remains valid even if the proclamation ceases to be in effect. The judgment came in an appeal challenging a decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This clarification reinforces accountability in complying with legal proclamations.
The Coimbatore Police submitted a comprehensive 23-page report to the Supreme Court detailing 15 years of cases linked to the Isha Foundation, citing missing persons, suicides, and sexual offenses. The report highlights ongoing investigations, concerns about operational practices, and mentions that inquiries into food safety were inconclusive. The Supreme Court will address the case on October 18.
The Delhi High Court highlighted the need to discard outdated criminal laws in favor of newly enacted legislation, reinforcing Parliament’s intent. The court condemned reliance on old laws in new petitions, urging adherence to the updated legal framework established on July 1, 2024, to enhance justice effectiveness and align with modern societal needs.
![[Kolkata Rape and Murder Case] "Supreme Court Noted That Peaceful Protests Cannot be Forcibly Stopped, But The State is Not Barred From Enforcing Legal Provisions": Bengal Police](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-45-3.png?resize=400%2C225&ssl=1)
Supratim Sarkar, Additional Director General of Police for South Bengal, addressed misconceptions about police restrictions during R.G. Kar protests. He clarified the Supreme Court’s stance on peaceful protests, stating that the police have authority to enforce legal provisions. The planned protest lacked police authorization and garnered support from state government employees. Recent court decisions have also influenced the situation.
Today, On 13th July, The Supreme Court questioned the retroactive application of Section 479 of the BNSS, allowing bail for first-time undertrials. This provision, addressing prison overcrowding, provides a more lenient option for release after serving one-third of the maximum sentence. The Court instructed the Central government to clarify this and emphasized the urgency of addressing prison conditions nationwide.
Delhi Lt Governor VK Saxena chaired a meeting to review the implementation of three new criminal laws in Delhi. The session emphasized the need for clear timelines and coordination. Key discussions included training health department officials and procurement of forensic vans. The laws have introduced new offences and extended police custody duration, requiring extensive training for legal professionals.
Today, On 15th July, The Supreme Court requested a response from Payal Abdullah regarding Omar Abdullah’s divorce plea. Omar’s lawyer argued that the marriage was “dead” as they had been living separately for 15 years and requested the court to dissolve the marriage. The High Court had earlier denied the divorce, citing unsubstantiated cruelty allegations.