The Supreme Court of India dismissed criminal proceedings against HDFC Bank, ruling that a corporation cannot possess mens rea, or criminal intent, needed for liability under the IPC. The court emphasized that the bank officials acted inadvertently in misinterpreting orders, lacking evidence of malicious intent or misappropriation, thus quashing the FIR.
On Wednesday(11th Sept), During the Supreme Court hearing, Attorney General R. Venkataramani stressed that enforcing fundamental duties requires ongoing legislative action and oversight. His comments came as the court reviewed a petition by lawyer Durga Dutt seeking clear laws to ensure compliance with constitutional duties.
On Friday(23rd August), The Supreme Court of India clarified that not all insults or intimidating comments against SC/ST individuals automatically qualify as offenses under the SC/ST Act. This ruling came while granting anticipatory bail to Shajan Skaria, who faced charges under the Act for allegedly posting a derogatory video targeting a Kerala MLA from a Scheduled Caste community.
Today, On 13th July, The Supreme Court questioned the retroactive application of Section 479 of the BNSS, allowing bail for first-time undertrials. This provision, addressing prison overcrowding, provides a more lenient option for release after serving one-third of the maximum sentence. The Court instructed the Central government to clarify this and emphasized the urgency of addressing prison conditions nationwide.
The Karnataka High Court questioned the trial court’s decision to grant bail to Janata Dal (Secular) leader HD Revanna in a kidnapping case. The court noted potential errors in the legal interpretation used and issued a notice to HD Revanna. The case involves serious allegations of sexual abuse, kidnapping, and leaked pornographic videos. The High Court has scheduled a priority hearing to address these severe allegations, emphasizing the urgency of the matter.
Today (16th May): The Supreme Court of India clarified that accused individuals in money laundering cases, appearing in court following summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, are not subject to strict bail conditions. The court emphasized that custodial interrogation is necessary for granting custody, and the stricter bail requirements do not apply in such cases. This ruling follows the controversy over the reinstatement of certain bail conditions and has prompted review applications and public criticism.
On 8th May: The Supreme Court referred the issue of recovering time-barred debts to a three-judge bench due to conflicting judgments. The matter arose from appeals against a 2015 Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict allowing the recovery of such debts through debt-recovery laws. The appellants and respondents were represented by multiple advocates. The Supreme Court’s three-judge bench will provide an authoritative ruling.
On 4th April: Attorney General R. Venketaramani stressed the precedence of Union List’s Entry 52 over State List’s Entry 24 in regulating industrial alcohol for national welfare. The 9-judge bench continued hearing arguments on state regulation of industrial alcohol. Key points included state governments’ authority and the interpretation of “intoxicating liquor” under the Constitution’s provisions, with the next hearing set for April 9, 2024.
On 11th March, The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized a woman’s sexual autonomy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly in relation to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. The court highlighted the need for legal recognition and support for unmarried women’s reproductive rights and addressed the ethical implications of their choices.