The Allahabad High Court expressed dissatisfaction after District Magistrate Mangla Prasad Singh’s phone was off during work hours. Justice Abdul Moin criticized the DM’s unavailability, raising concerns about emergency contact. The Court reviewed an eight-month delay in renewing an explosives license, instructing the DM to appear and explain the situation.
The Supreme Court criticized the Patna High Court’s comments about a widow and make-up articles in a 1985 murder case, calling them “highly objectionable.” The Supreme Court stated that the remarks lacked sensitivity and evidence, highlighting that no definitive proof linked the victim to the house or supported motive for the crime. All seven accused were acquitted.
On Wednesday(11th Sept), the Madhya Pradesh High Court voiced frustration over the lenient treatment of juvenile offenders under Indian law, even in cases of severe crimes like rape.
Justice Subodh Abhyankar criticized the legislature for not enacting stricter laws for juvenile offenders, despite more than a decade having passed since the Nirbhaya gang rape in 2012.
![[RG Kar Rape-Murder Case] Crowd Abuses, Pushes & Tries to Slap Kolkata Ex-Principal Dr Sandip Ghosh In Court](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-2024-09-04T171232.187.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Dr. Sandip Ghosh, former principal of RG Kar Medical College, was arrested for alleged corruption and financial misconduct. Facing public outrage over a doctor’s rape and murder at the hospital, he stepped down but was appointed as principal of another college by the West Bengal government. The case has been transferred to the CBI.
West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee’s statement during a recent event has sparked controversy, leading lawyer Vineet Jindal to file a complaint with Delhi Police. Jindal alleges that her remarks, hinting at potential unrest in several states including Delhi, are provocative and could threaten national harmony. He is seeking action under specific sections of the law.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the case against the film “The Diary of West Bengal” on Thursday, citing a Supreme Court ruling on banning books or movies. Chief Justice TS Shivagnam emphasized that individuals have the choice to watch or not watch, and criticism is a right in a democratic society, stating that there are more pressing issues to address. The film’s director clarified that it was not intended to undermine the honor of Bengal and was based on factual information. The controversy arose following the release of the film’s trailer, which featured events in Bengal and characters resembling political figures, including a version of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.
The ancient text Manusmriti has been introduced into the University of Delhi’s Faculty of Law curriculum, sparking controversy. Despite criticism for endorsing the caste system and gender inequality, faculty members argue for its inclusion for a critical comparative perspective. However, students express concern about potential societal division and discrimination in a modern, democratic society.
The Delhi High Court Today (May 22nd) reserved its verdict on the plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the transfer of the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from a judge who allegedly remarked “ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai? (where is the question of bail in ED matters?)”. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized the impact such remarks and subsequent case transfers have on judges
A Mumbai court granted anticipatory bail to a government employee facing charges under Section 353 of the IPC for recording a dispute with a traffic officer. The court deemed that the essential elements of Section 353 were not present and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. This decision has sparked discussions about the interpretation and application of the IPC.
![[ Controversial Tweet] Bhushan Accuses Judge of Political Dog-Whistling, Must Read SC EVM'S Order](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MicrosoftTeams-image-9-2.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Prominent public figure Prashant Bhushan accused a judge of politically motivated “dog-whistling” in a controversial tweet. His critics attribute this to his history of judicial criticism and losing public interest litigations. The debate raises questions about judicial integrity and the need for respectful critique. Bhushan’s conduct may lead to potential contempt proceedings, provoking concerns about free speech.