The Karnataka High Court urged Parliament and State legislatures to bring in a Uniform Civil Code. The Court stated that such a code would uphold justice for women and promote equality across all castes and religions. It emphasized the importance of individual dignity and fraternity. The suggestion aims to foster a more unified and fair legal framework for all citizens.
Today, On 28th March, The Supreme Court ruled that the notion of art or stand-up comedy inciting hatred could severely restrict free speech. The court emphasized that literature, poetry, drama, films, satire, and stage performances enrich human life. It highlighted the importance of artistic expression in a democratic society. The verdict reinforces the constitutional protection of creative freedom in India.
The Delhi High Court will review articles from The Caravan and The Ken to determine interim relief in the defamation case filed by ANI against Wikipedia. ANI claims that Wikipedia permitted defamatory edits to its page on the platform. The court’s examination of these articles is crucial to the ongoing legal dispute. This case highlights concerns over content accuracy and accountability on online platforms.
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of provisions in the new criminal laws, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. Advocate Vishal Tiwari argues these laws violate fundamental rights, citing excessive police powers and longer detention periods. The plea seeks judicial review and striking down of specific sections as unconstitutional.
The Kerala High Court ruled that religious sites cannot be obstructed solely due to opposition from another community, emphasizing the importance of religious freedom in a democratic society. The court annulled a previous denial for a Muslim prayer hall, stating that minor objections do not justify restricting constitutional rights under Articles 25 and 26.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) opposes a Uniform Civil Code, citing conflict with Sharia law protected by the Shariat Application Act of 1937 and the Indian Constitution. They condemn Prime Minister Modi’s advocacy for a Secular Civil Code, arguing it undermines religious freedom and cultural traditions, potentially marginalizing minority communities.
![[Swati Maliwal Assault Case] Bibhav Kumar Appeals to SC Against Delhi HC's Bail Order](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/image-37-3.png?resize=447%2C360&ssl=1)
Today, On 1st July, The Delhi High Court issued a notice to Delhi Police in response to a plea by Bibhav Kumar challenging his potential arrest in the Swati Maliwal assault case. Kumar, an associate of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, denied bail due to the serious nature of the allegations. The case carries political implications for the Aam Aadmi Party.
The Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on an individual seeking justifications for Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendations, emphasizing the Collegium’s autonomy. The petitioner’s plea was deemed a misuse of judicial resources, lacking genuine public interest. The decision raised concerns about judicial independence versus transparency in the Collegium system.
The Supreme Court of India has directed on 17th May, the Union Government to create a comprehensive sentencing policy to ensure fairness and uniformity in sentencing. The policy aims to avoid judge-centric decisions and disparities, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to fundamental rights. The court proposed the establishment of a “sentencing commission” comprising experts in various fields to develop comprehensive sentencing guidelines.
