BREAKING| Bihar SIR Row: Dangerous, Unreasonable to Use School Teachers as BLOs to Decide Citizenship: Kapil Sibal

Today, On 27th November, Kapil Sibal said it is a “dangerous proposition and unreasonable” to deploy school teachers as BLOs, arguing that such officials cannot decide citizenship and the process risks wrongful voter deletions across Bihar’s electoral rolls.

If ECI Has No Power, It Won’t: Supreme Court Questions Poll Body’s Authority to Decide Citizenship in SIR

Today, On 11th November, The Supreme Court questioned the poll body’s authority to decide citizenship during the Special Summary Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, saying “If ECI Has No Power, It Won’t,” while hearing pleas challenging the exercise in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal.

BREAKING| SIR of Electoral Rolls : Supreme Court Stays All High Court Proceedings, Next Hearing on Nov 26

Today, On 11th November, The Supreme Court stayed all High Court proceedings on the validity of the electoral roll revision across Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Pondicherry, directing that the matter be centrally heard, and scheduled the next hearing for November 26.

BREAKING| Bihar SIR Row: Supreme Court to Hear Case on November 11

Today, On 7th November, The Supreme Court listed the Bihar SIR case for hearing on November 11 at 11 AM after Advocate Prashant Bhushan sought urgent consideration, citing concerns over the Election Commission’s refusal to accept Aadhaar for voter verification.

Bar Council Of India To Supreme Court: “Advocate Cannot Do Full-Time Journalism To Maintain The Integrity Of The Profession”

Today, On 16th December, the Bar Council of India informed the Supreme Court that practicing advocates cannot work full-time as journalists, citing Rule 49 to prevent conflicts of interest. The court and petitioner acknowledged this stance, emphasizing the necessity for advocates to focus solely on their legal responsibilities to maintain professional integrity and public trust.

“Testimony Of Witnesses Can’t Be Rejected Merely On the Fact That They Are Relatives”: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that witness testimony from relatives cannot be dismissed solely based on familial connections. It emphasized a careful evaluation of such testimonies. The appellant’s conviction was reduced due to evidence showing no premeditation in a heated altercation, leading to his release after serving nearly ten years in prison.

“No Grounds for Prosecuting Lawyer Over Financial Loss, If There is No Intention to Defraud Clients”: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a lawyer cannot be held criminally liable for financial losses to a bank without evidence of intent to defraud. Charges against an SBI lawyer were quashed as there was no proof of collusion or active participation in a loan fraud scheme, emphasizing the necessity of malicious intent in fraud cases.

“Requires Training on the Subject”: HC Bench Shocked by Judge’s Lapse, Refers Matter to Chief Justice

The Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized an Additional Sessions Judge for prioritizing a police statement over a court testimony, leading to unjust penalties against witnesses. The Bench expressed its concern for judicial diligence and recommended further training for the judge, referring the case to the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action.

‘Arbitrary’ Selection Process: HC Quashes Appointment of 935 Constables in Nagaland; Orders Fresh Recruitment

The Gauhati High Court, led by Justice Devashis Baruah, annulled the appointments of 935 Nagaland police constables due to irregularities. The Court mandated a new, legally compliant recruitment process within six months, addressing concerns over “backdoor appointments.” Previous appointees may remain for six months until replacements are made.

“X” Corp Challenges Global Takedown Orders for Alleged Defamation Case of Journalist Rajat Sharma in Delhi HC

The social media company ‘X’ Corp today has contested a Delhi High Court order requiring the removal of allegedly defamatory posts about journalist Rajat Sharma globally, arguing that it violates international law and encroaches on other countries’ sovereignty. The court case involves a defamation suit filed by Sharma in response to abusive content on social media and TV.