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.