![[Landmark ADM Jabalpur Case] A Shared Legacy of CJI Chandrachud & Justice Sanjiv Khanna](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-33-1.png?resize=447%2C360&ssl=1)
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjiv Khanna are linked through the ADM Jabalpur case, where their predecessors delivered a controversial verdict in 1976. Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent emphasized the rule of law. Chandrachud later overruled that decision, highlighting progress in India’s legal interpretation of fundamental rights, marking a poetic justice moment.
![[Ex-Police ASI Sachin Waze Case] Bombay HC's Justice Bharati Dangre Recuses Herself From Hearing The Plea](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/shared-image-2-2.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 27th August, Justice Bharati Dangre of the Bombay High Court has recused herself from hearing the petition filed by former Assistant Police Inspector Sachin Waze. The petition challenges his detention in a corruption case involving allegations against the former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh. Waze, seeking bail and claiming wrongful detention, also requested release under CrPC Section 167(2).
![[Pune Porsche Crash] Bombay HC orders Immediate Release of Accused Teen from observation home](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-3-6.png?resize=447%2C338&ssl=1)
The Bombay High Court ordered the immediate release of the teenager accused in the Pune Porsche crash, where two people died. The 17-year-old, son of a real estate developer, will now be under his aunt’s care as his parents and grandfather have been arrested for attempting a cover-up. The incident led to widespread outrage and legal actions against those involved.
Justice G. Jayachandran criticized Justice G.R. Swaminathan for bias against State police and hasty decision-making in YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar’s detention case. Swaminathan’s failure to consult his bench partner and refusal to allow the State to file a counter affidavit led Jayachandran to declare Swaminathan’s opinion invalid. Swaminathan’s explanations were deemed inadequate.
The Madras High Court referred the Savukku Shankar case, previously given a split verdict, to a regular division bench, declaring the previous ruling an “anomaly.” The new bench will consider two key questions and review the habeas corpus petition. Justice Jayachandran criticized the delay and lack of judicial integrity in the case.
The Supreme Court of India has laid down comprehensive guidelines for handling protection petitions filed by couples, prioritizing right to dignity and fundamental rights. The directives emphasize the need to safeguard the dignity of intimate partners, including LGBTQ+ individuals, without moral biases. This decision, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, sets a progressive precedent in protecting individual liberties.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition accusing Swami Nithyananda of child abduction and coercion for donations. The plea was rejected after evidence from the children involved. The parents sought custody of their daughters allegedly held at Nithyananda’s ashram, claiming illegal confinement and FIR against ashram officials. Nithyananda had previously fled India, involving an international aspect.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling emphasized that an elder sister must obtain a court order for guardianship, rejecting a habeas corpus petition. Justices clarified that an elder sister does not have automatic guardianship rights over her younger sibling and must seek it through proper legal channels. The case underscores the importance of adhering to formal legal procedures in family matters.