Skip to Content

1st February, 2025

1). Supreme Court: Bail is Mandatory if Arrest is Unlawful, Rejects ED’s Plea

Case Background

In this case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had issued a Look Out Circular (LOC) against an individual, leading to his detention at Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport, Delhi, by the Immigration Bureau on March 5, 2022, at 11 AM. However, the ED officially recorded his arrest at 1:15 AM on March 6, 2022, and presented him before a magistrate on the same day at 3 PM. The accused challenged the legality of his arrest, arguing that he was not presented before a magistrate within 24 hours, as required by the law.

Issues in the Case

  1. Whether the arrest by ED was legal, considering the accused had been in custody since 11 AM on March 5, 2022.
  2. Whether the ED violated fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India by failing to present the accused before a magistrate within 24 hours.
  3. Whether the accused was entitled to bail, even though the twin conditions for bail under Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were not fulfilled.

Court Observations

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan examined the case and made the following key observations:

  1. Violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution:
    • According to Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution, an arrested person must be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours of being taken into custody.
    • The accused was detained at 11 AM on March 5, 2022, but the ED officially recorded his arrest only at 1:15 AM on March 6, 2022 to justify the delay.
    • The Court rejected this justification, stating that the 24-hour period started from the initial custody at 11 AM on March 5, 2022. Since the accused was not presented before a magistrate within this timeframe, his detention became illegal.
  2. Fundamental Right to Liberty (Article 21) Violated:
    • Since the detention exceeded the 24-hour limit without judicial review, the Court ruled that the accused's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution was also violated.
  3. Application of Cr.P.C. in PMLA Cases:
    • The ED argued that PMLA provisions override the general arrest provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
    • The Court clarified that there is no inconsistency between PMLA and Section 57 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates presenting an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours.
    • Therefore, PMLA cases must also follow the same rule.

Court Rulings/Decisions

  1. The arrest was declared illegal because the accused was not presented before the magistrate within 24 hours of initial detention.
  2. The accused was granted bail, even though he did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA.
  3. When fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 are violated, bail cannot be denied based on procedural conditions under PMLA.
  4. Courts have a duty to protect fundamental rights, and any arrest violating these rights is automatically vitiated (invalid).

Legal Provisions Applied

  • Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to life and personal liberty.
  • Article 22(2) of the Constitution – Requirement to present an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours.
  • Section 57 of Cr.P.C. – Similar requirement to present the arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours.
  • Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA – Twin conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases.

Significance of the Judgment

  1. Reinforces Constitutional Protections:
    • The ruling strengthens the protection of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22. It establishes that no government agency, including the Enforcement Directorate (ED), can violate these constitutional provisions.
  2. Ensures Accountability of Investigating Agencies:
    • Investigating agencies cannot misuse procedural loopholes to justify illegal arrests. The 24-hour rule must be strictly followed.
  3. Clarifies Bail Provisions under PMLA:
    • If an arrest violates fundamental rights, the accused must be granted bail, even if they do not meet the twin conditions under PMLA.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed ED’s appeal, ruling that the arrest was illegal and unconstitutional. This judgment is significant as it upholds fundamental rights and ensures that law enforcement agencies remain accountable for following due process.

Case Name: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VERSUS SUBHASH SHARMA

2). Prolonged Detention Without Trial Unjust: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail 

Case Background

The applicant was charged under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He had been in jail since 2017 and applied for bail during the trial. However, his first bail application was rejected in 2020.

In 2024, he filed another bail application, arguing that he had been in custody for more than seven years and that the trial had not progressed significantly. He contended that his continued detention was unjustified as there was no likelihood of the trial concluding anytime soon.

Issues in the Case

  1. Whether prolonged incarceration of more than seven years without trial completion violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted bail given the significant delay in trial proceedings.

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice Krishan Pahal made the following key observations:

  1. Violation of the Right to a Speedy Trial (Article 21):
    • The applicant had been in jail for 7 years and 9 months, but only 3 out of 16 witnesses had been examinedsince October 25, 2019.
    • The trial had remained stagnant, making his continued detention unjust and unwarranted.
    • Article 21 guarantees the fundamental right to a speedy trial, and such a long delay amounted to a serious violation of this right.
  2. State Counsel’s Failure to Show Exceptional Circumstances:
    • The Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide any exceptional reasons to justify keeping the applicant in jail for such a long period.
    • There was no evidence that the applicant would flee from justice, intimidate witnesses, or create any trouble if released on bail.
  3. Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents:
    • The Court cited the case of Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, where the Supreme Court granted bail to the applicant after 6.5 years in jail.
    • It also referred to V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, where the Supreme Court ruled that a higher threshold for bail cannot be justified if there is inordinate delay in trial.

Court Rulings/Decisions

  1. Bail was granted to the applicant due to the unjustified delay in the trial and the lack of progress since 2019.
  2. The Court ruled that justice demanded the applicant’s release since there was no realistic chance of the trial concluding soon.
  3. The Court clarified that its decision was not based on the merits of the case, but solely on the violation of the applicant’s right to a speedy trial.

Legal Provisions Applied

  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a speedy trial.
  • Sections 302 and 307 of IPC – Charges of murder and attempted murder against the applicant. (Section 103(1) & 109 of BN)

Significance of the Judgment

  1. Strengthens the Right to a Speedy Trial:
    • The ruling reinforces that prolonged incarceration without trial progress is unconstitutional.
    • Courts must ensure that delays in the legal process do not violate fundamental rights.
  2. Holds the Prosecution Accountable:
    • The judgment highlights the responsibility of the State to conduct trials efficiently.
    • Failure to proceed with a case cannot be a reason to deny bail indefinitely.
  3. Follows Supreme Court Guidelines:
    • The judgment aligns with Supreme Court precedents, ensuring consistency in judicial decisions on bail matters.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing that his prolonged detention without trial was unconstitutional. The ruling highlights the importance of the right to a speedy trial and ensures that justice is not delayed indefinitely due to inefficiencies in the legal system.

Case Name: Sarvajeet Singh v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41474 of 2024]

3). Kerala High Court : Indian-Foreigner Marriage Abroad Cannot Be Registered Under SMA

Case Background

The petitioners in this case were an Indian citizen and an Indonesian citizen who had solemnized their marriage in Indonesia under the civil laws of Indonesia. After moving to Thrissur, India, they wanted to formally register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954.

They submitted a joint application to the Marriage Officer, but the officer sought clarification from the District Marriage Officer and did not receive any response. As a result, their application for registration was not processed.

The petitioners argued that they had fulfilled all the legal requirements under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) and that denying them registration was a violation of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues in the Case

  1. Whether a marriage between an Indian citizen and a foreign citizen, solemnized outside India, can be registered under the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954.
  2. Whether the petitioners' marriage should instead be registered under the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA), 1969.

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice C. S. Dias examined the case and made the following key observations:

  1. Difference Between the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act
    • The Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, applies to marriages solemnized and/or registered in India. It allows two individuals, irrespective of nationality or religion, to marry under Indian civil law.
    • The Foreign Marriage Act (FMA), 1969, applies to marriages where at least one party is an Indian citizen and the marriage takes place outside India. It provides a mechanism for registering and certifying marriages that have already been performed in foreign countries.
    • Based on this comparison of the two laws, the Court stated that the petitioners must register their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act and not under the SMA.
  2. Foreign Marriage Act and Its Provisions
    • The Court examined the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA), 1969, which defines a "foreign country" as any place outside India.
    • The Act includes provisions for registering marriages performed under foreign laws, recognizing foreign marriages, and certifying marriage documents.
    • Since the petitioners' marriage was performed in Indonesia, their registration should be governed by the Foreign Marriage Act, not the SMA.
  3. Reference to Previous Case Law
    • The Court referred to Arun R.K. v. State of Kerala (2023), where it was held that a marriage conducted outside India can be registered under the Foreign Marriage Act without the couple having to travel back to the foreign country.
    • Based on this precedent, the Court clarified that the petitioners can complete their registration online under the Foreign Marriage Act without going to Indonesia.

Court Rulings/Decisions

  1. The petitioners cannot register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, since their marriage was solemnized outside India.
  2. They must register their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA), 1969.
  3. They can complete the registration process online without traveling back to Indonesia.
  4. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Legal Provisions Applied

  • Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) – Governs marriages solemnized and registered within India.
  • Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 (FMA) – Governs marriages where at least one party is an Indian citizen, and the marriage is conducted outside India.
  • Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to marriage and family life.

Significance of the Judgment

  1. Clarifies Marriage Registration Laws for Cross-Border Marriages
    • The ruling clearly distinguishes between the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act.
    • Indian citizens marrying foreigners outside India should register under the Foreign Marriage Act, not the SMA.
  2. Ensures Easier Registration Process for Couples
    • The Court’s reference to online registration under the FMA makes it easier for couples to legalize their marriage in India without unnecessary travel.
  3. Reinforces Legal Certainty for Foreign Marriages
    • This judgment provides legal clarity on how marriages involving Indian citizens and foreign nationalsshould be recognized and registered.
    • It prevents confusion and ensures that the correct legal framework is applied.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court dismissed the petitioners’ request to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act (SMA), stating that since their marriage was conducted in Indonesia, they must register it under the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA), 1969. The Court also clarified that the registration can be done online without traveling to Indonesia, making the process more convenient.

Case Name: Vipin P G v State of Kerala 

Case No: WP(C) NO.36871 OF 2024

4). Eviction Justified if Landlord Needs Property for Son’s Business, Says Allahabad High Court 

Case Background

The case involved a dispute between a tenant (petitioner) and a landlord (respondent) over the release of a rented shopunder Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

  • The landlord sought the release of the shop to settle his son in an independent business, claiming a bona fide need for the premises.
  • The Prescribed Authority ruled in favor of the landlord, ordering the tenant’s eviction.
  • The tenant’s appeal was rejected, so he challenged both orders before the Allahabad High Court.

Issues in the Case

  1. Whether a father’s request to release a rented shop to settle his son in an independent business constitutes a bona fide need.
  2. Whether the lower authorities erred in ignoring GST documents that allegedly showed the son was already in business.

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice Ajit Kumar examined the case and made the following key observations:

1. A Son Has the Right to an Independent Business

  • The Court emphasized that if a son has been working with his father, he has every right to start his own business.
  • A father is justified in seeking the release of a rented shop to establish his son independently.

2. Relevance of GST Documents

  • The tenant argued that GST documents showed the father and son already ran a joint business, meaning there was no need for a separate shop.
  • However, the Court noted that the GSTIN number was cancelled in 2018, while the release application was filed in 2020.
  • Since the business was solely in the father’s name at the time of the case, the GST documents were not relevant evidence.

3. Survey Commission Report on Number of Shops

  • The tenant claimed the landlord had three shops, and one of them could have been given to the son.
  • However, the Court relied on the Survey Commission report, which confirmed there were only two shops.
  • This meant the landlord did not have extra space to accommodate his son’s business without reclaiming the rented shop.

Court Rulings/Decisions

  1. The landlord’s request for eviction was justified as the son had a bona fide need to start an independent business.
  2. The lower authorities were correct in ignoring the GST documents since they were outdated and irrelevant.
  3. There was no legal or factual error in the lower authorities’ decision.
  4. The writ petition was dismissed, and the eviction order was upheld.

Legal Provisions Applied

  • Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent, and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant if the premises are required for personal or family use.

Significance of the Judgment

  1. Strengthens the Rights of Landlords Seeking Eviction for Bona Fide Need
    • The ruling reaffirms that landlords can reclaim rented property to establish their children’s independent businesses.
  2. Clarifies the Relevance of Evidence in Eviction Cases
    • The judgment highlights that only documents relevant at the time of filing the case should be considered, preventing the misuse of outdated records.
  3. Ensures Judicial Consistency in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
    • The decision aligns with established legal principles, ensuring fair and consistent rulings in future eviction cases.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the tenant’s petition, upholding the landlord’s right to reclaim the shop for his son’s independent business. The Court ruled that the request was bona fide, and the lower authorities correctly ignored outdated GST documents. This judgment reinforces the principle that a son has the right to establish his own business, and a father can lawfully support him by reclaiming rented property.

Case Name: Hari Shankar v. Rakesh Kumar [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15637 of 2024]

5). Delhi High Court: Fake Anti-Cancer Drug Supplier Part of Syndicate, No Bail

Case Background

The case involved an accused (applicant) who was booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for his alleged role in the illegal procurement and sale of spurious anti-cancer drugs. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) alleged that:

  • The accused was involved in a crime syndicate that manufactured and distributed counterfeit anti-cancer medicines.
  • He was in contact with the prime accused and knowingly helped in the sale of fake drugs.
  • The accused allegedly generated proceeds of crime amounting to ₹7.45 lakh through this illegal activity.

The accused applied for bail, but the Delhi High Court rejected his plea.

Issues in the Case

  1. Whether the accused’s arrest complied with Section 19 of the PMLA, which requires "reasons to believe" before making an arrest.
  2. Whether the accused could be denied bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, considering the amount involved in the crime was less than ₹1 crore.
  3. Whether statements made by the co-accused under Section 50 of PMLA were the sole basis for arrest and if they had evidentiary value.
  4. Whether the accused satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA for grant of bail.

Court Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the following key observations:

1. The Seriousness of the Offence

  • The Court noted that the accused was not involved in a minor economic offence but was part of an organized crime syndicate engaged in selling spurious life-saving anti-cancer drugs.
  • This raised concerns that if released on bail, he might continue criminal activities.

2. Compliance with Section 19 PMLA

  • The accused argued that his arrest was illegal as the authorities had no valid reasons to believe his guilt.
  • The Court relied on Senthil Balaji vs. The State (2023), where the Supreme Court held that arrests under Section 19 PMLA must be based on proper assessment of evidence.
  • Here, the Court found that the ED had followed due process, and the arrest was backed by financial records, WhatsApp chats, and transactions linking the accused to the crime.
  • Therefore, Section 19 PMLA was not violated.

3. Relevance of Co-Accused’s Statement under Section 50 PMLA

  • The accused claimed that his arrest was based solely on statements of the co-accused, which should not have been considered as valid evidence.
  • The Court referred to Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. vs. ED (2024) and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. UOI (2022), where the Supreme Court ruled that statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA are judicial proceedings and are admissible in evidence.
  • However, the Court clarified that the ED’s case was not based only on these statements but also on financial records and digital evidence.

4. Burden of Proof under Section 24 PMLA

  • Section 24 PMLA states that the burden of proving that proceeds of crime are untainted lies on the accused.
  • The Court relied on Prem Prakash v. UOI (2024), where the Supreme Court held that once the prosecution establishes foundational facts, the burden shifts to the accused to prove his innocence.
  • Here, the Court found that the applicant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 24 since evidence showed he was actively involved in the crime and transferred money to the co-accused.

5. Applicability of Section 45 PMLA

  • The accused argued that since the proceeds of crime linked to him were only ₹7.45 lakh (less than ₹1 crore), he should be exempt from the stricter bail conditions under Section 45 PMLA.
  • However, the Court noted that the entire laundering scheme was worth more than ₹1 crore, and the applicant was an active participant in a larger conspiracy.
  • Thus, the monetary threshold exemption did not apply, and Section 45 PMLA was fully applicable.

6. Failure to Satisfy Twin Bail Conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA

  • Under Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA, an accused can only be granted bail if:
    1. There are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty.
    2. There is no likelihood of him committing any offence while on bail.
  • The Court found that:
    • There was strong prima facie evidence against the accused.
    • The accused was part of an organized crime network.
    • There was a risk he might influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
  • Therefore, he failed to satisfy both conditions, and bail was denied.

Court Rulings/Decisions

  1. The accused’s arrest under Section 19 PMLA was valid and followed due process.
  2. Statements under Section 50 PMLA have legal evidentiary value, and the ED’s case was based on multiple sources of evidence.
  3. The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 24 PMLA.
  4. The monetary threshold exemption under Section 45 PMLA did not apply as the overall scheme involved more than ₹1 crore.
  5. The accused did not meet the twin conditions for bail under Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA.
  6. The bail application was rejected.

Legal Provisions Applied

  • Section 19 PMLA – Arrest provisions requiring “reasons to believe” before making an arrest.
  • Section 24 PMLA – Burden of proof lies on the accused to show that proceeds of crime are untainted.
  • Section 45 PMLA – Conditions for bail in money laundering cases.
  • Section 50 PMLA – Statements made before PMLA authorities are admissible as evidence.

Significance of the Judgment

  1. Reinforces Stringent Bail Conditions Under PMLA
    • The ruling highlights that accused persons in money laundering cases must meet strict requirements to get bail.
  2. Strengthens Investigative Powers Under PMLA
    • The judgment confirms that statements under Section 50 PMLA are valid evidence and that arrests must be based on concrete proof.
  3. Expands the Scope of Section 45 PMLA
    • The Court clarified that the ₹1 crore exemption does not apply if the accused is part of a larger conspiracy involving higher amounts.
  4. Protects Public Interest in Healthcare Fraud Cases
    • The case emphasizes the severe consequences of counterfeit medicines and the need for strict enforcement against such crimes.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application, ruling that the accused played an active role in the counterfeit medicine syndicate. The Court upheld the validity of his arrest, found that he failed to prove his innocence, and held that he did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA. This decision reinforces the strict approach courts take in money laundering cases, especially when public health is at risk.

Case Name: Lovee Narula vs.Directorate Of Enforcement

Add-On

Amicus S. Muralidhar Recommends Secret Ballot for Senior Advocate Designation, Citing Judges’ Reluctance to Express Views

Case Background

On January 31, 2025, the Supreme Court of India heard discussions regarding the process of designating Senior Advocates. Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar, acting as amicus curiae (a neutral legal expert assisting the court), suggested that a secret ballot system should be used for selecting Senior Advocates. This means all judges of a constitutional court would vote in secret, and a lawyer would be designated as a Senior Advocate if they receive a two-thirds majority of votes from judges present and voting.

This discussion took place during a case concerning false statements and suppression of facts by a Senior Advocate in multiple remission pleas. The bench hearing the case comprised Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, also supported the secret ballot proposal.

The existing process for Senior Advocate designation follows the 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, which laid down guidelines for selecting Senior Advocates based on merit, transparency, and assessment by a Permanent Committee.

Issues in the Case

  1. Should a secret ballot be introduced for selecting Senior Advocates?
  2. Should the role of the Permanent Committee be changed in the designation process?
  3. How can diversity be improved in the selection of Senior Advocates?
  4. Should trial court lawyers also be considered for Senior Advocate designation?
  5. Should new elements from other jurisdictions be introduced in the Indian process?

Court Observations

1. Secret Ballot for Senior Advocate Designation

  • Amicus S. Muralidhar argued that judges feel hesitant to express their opinions in full court meetings because discussions often leak into the public domain.
  • He suggested a secret ballot system where all judges vote confidentially.
  • He also proposed that the Permanent Committee should not assign marks to candidates but instead prepare a chart listing the eligibility criteria. Each judge would then make their own assessment.

Opposition by Indira Jaising

  • Senior Advocate Indira Jaising strongly opposed the secret ballot idea. She argued that Supreme Court judges should not feel intimidated or reluctant to express their opinions.
  • She emphasized that the process is a selection, not an election, so a voting system like a secret ballot is not appropriate.
  • Jaising also proposed that full court meetings should be live-streamed to ensure transparency.

2. Diversity in Senior Advocate Designation

  • Jaising stressed that diversity should be an important factor in the selection process.
  • She pointed out that India’s Constitution provides affirmative action, and selecting Senior Advocates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and minority communities can improve access to justice for litigants.
  • She cited the UK’s practice, where diversity factors such as gender and disability are considered.

3. Inclusion of Trial Court Lawyers

  • Justice Oka raised concerns about the exclusion of trial court lawyers who may not have many reported judgments but still contribute significantly to the legal profession.
  • He stated that these lawyers should not be automatically disqualified from consideration for Senior Advocate designation.

4. Senior Advocate Designation in Other Countries

  • Jaising discussed the process in other countries:
    • UK: Candidates must pay £2100 while applying for Senior Advocate status, which is used for legal aid.
    • Nigeria: Authorities examine a candidate’s financial transactions (such as whether they accept fees in cash or by check) and also review their personal library to assess their legal knowledge.
  • Justice Oka suggested that India could also introduce an application fee for Senior Advocate designation and use the funds for legal aid.

5. Access to Supreme Court Judges’ Library

  • Jaising humorously complained that lawyers do not have access to the Supreme Court judges' library, which she called one of the best in the world.
  • She requested Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to write a letter on behalf of lawyers, asking for access to the library on a paid basis.

Court Ruling/Decision

  • The Supreme Court reserved its order, meaning it will announce its decision later after considering all the suggestions.

Legal Provisions Involved

  • Article 136 of the Constitution of India (Special Leave Petition): The Supreme Court can hear appeals in exceptional cases.
  • Article 217 of the Constitution of India (Appointment of High Court Judges): Discusses judicial selection and appointment, which is relevant when considering a judge-led process for Senior Advocate designation.
  • Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017): Governs the current procedure for selecting Senior Advocates.

Significance and Conclusion

  • The case raises important questions about judicial transparency and whether the process for selecting Senior Advocates should be changed.
  • The debate over secret ballot voting highlights concerns about judicial independence and openness.
  • Diversity and inclusion in the legal profession remain a key focus, as suggested by Indira Jaising.
  • The final decision of the Supreme Court could have a long-term impact on how Senior Advocates are designated in India.

Case Title – Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr

Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024

31st January, 2025