The Calcutta High Court held that a husband’s pressure on his wife to bring her share of ancestral property may amount to a dowry demand under Section 304B IPC. The Court upheld his conviction, reduced the sentence to ten years, and acquitted the parents-in-law.
The Delhi High Court upheld a Family Court order directing a DNA test, ruling that a child’s right to know biological parentage outweighs an adult’s concern over reputation. The Court observed that truth cannot be suppressed merely because it causes personal discomfort.
The Delhi High Court allowed a 17-year-old minor to donate part of his liver to his critically ill father, considering exceptional circumstances. The Court approved the transplant after finding that the son was the only medically suitable donor available among relatives.
The Calcutta High Court refused to entertain TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee’s plea challenging a magistrate’s order directing him to provide a voice sample in the DJ remark case. The Court heard arguments on BNSS provisions, investigation rights, and the need for evidence collection.
The Supreme Court held that disciplinary authorities must exercise caution before imposing dismissal from service, as such punishment severely affects employees and their dependents. The Court said dismissal should be reserved for cases involving the most serious misconduct.
The Supreme Court held that no person can be allowed to benefit from his or her own wrongdoing, ruling that anyone accused of murdering someone or abetting the act will be barred from inheriting the victim’s property today.
Justice Manmohan of the Supreme Court said criticism should be seen as guidance and not rejection, urging openness to improvement. He added, “Criticism should not be treated as a condemnation of the system. It should be treated as a suggestion.”
Expressing deep shock, the Supreme Court intervened in the horrific rape-murder of a four-year-old girl in Ghaziabad. The Court summoned the police commissioner and investigating officer on April 13, directing them to appear with all case records.
The Delhi High Court set aside an FIR and criminal proceedings against a woman accused under Section 307 IPC, prioritising restoration of family ties over retribution. Observing the relationship resembled that of a mother and child, the court said, “if justice is ever to be tempered with mercy, this is a fit case for such an approach.”
The Supreme Court of India issued notice to the Union Government, States and Union Territories on a PIL seeking action against false complaints, fabricated evidence and malicious prosecution. A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant heard Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay’s Article 32 petition.
