Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea seeking an FIR against PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah over the CAA, stating, “No prudent man can make such arbitrary, absurd and bogus allegation,” highlighting lack of evidence in the claim.
The Bombay High Court ruled that Shireen Jejeebhoy, Ratan Tata’s sister, is entitled to legal costs from his estate. The decision clarified the distribution of Ratan Tata’s assets as detailed in his Will and Codicils, emphasizing that unlisted and listed shares will be allocated to the Ratan Tata Endowment Foundation and Trust.
India’s Central government has confirmed that it does not currently have plans to regulate third-party litigation funding. In response to a parliamentary question posed by Mohammed Nadimul Haque, a Rajya Sabha member from the Trinamool Congress, the government made it clear that it is not considering any regulatory framework to manage third-party funding of legal cases.
Indira Jaising urges a delay in implementing new criminal laws, concerned about their impact on access to justice and citizens’ rights. The laws replace longstanding ones, raise ambiguity over retrospective application, and compound judicial backlog. They diverge from Supreme Court precedents, potentially compromising liberties. Jaising calls for thorough debate and assessment by stakeholders before implementation.
On Tuesday(11th June),The Union Law Ministry, under Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, has finalized the National Litigation Policy to expedite case resolution and improve the legal system. The policy aims to address pending cases, enhance arbitration, and reduce legal costs. Meghwal also highlighted the imminent enforcement of three new criminal laws and emphasized the importance of incorporating new technologies in the legal system.
On Thursday( 18th April), The Supreme Court fined the Telangana government Rs. 5 lakh for submitting inaccurate affidavits in a property dispute, raising environmental and administrative accountability issues. The dispute involves contradictory positions taken by a district collector regarding the classification of disputed property as forest land. The Court criticized the High Court’s ruling and imposed costs on both parties.