The Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for politicians to be thick-skinned and for judges to be tolerant amidst a case involving a West Bengal political commentator seeking protection from potential arrests. The commentator faced FIRs for alleged offensive remarks about the Assamese community and sought to consolidate and transfer the cases to a neutral state.
The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on quashing an FIR against Chandrababu Naidu. Justices disagreed on the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, leading to a referral to the Chief Justice. The case raises questions about prior sanction for inquiry or investigation of public servants, highlighting complexities in legal interpretation.
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on Friday, has dismissed the Punjab government’s appeal against the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) president Sukhbir Singh Badal. This FIR had accused Badal of contravening orders issued by a public servant and committing offenses under the Epidemic […]
Punjab & Haryana High Court Raises Concerns Over Mentioning Religion in FIRs In a significant move, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has raised objections over the inclusion of an individual’s religion in the First Information Report (FIR) by the Haryana Police, terming it a “serious issue.” Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, presiding over the bench, […]