The Arc And Web Of Drug Trade Cannot Be Permitted To Corrode The Shine Of The Youth Of India!   2024 KLT OnLine 2978 (SC) Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. National Investigation Agency Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh Decided on 16th December, 2024 For full text  click here

Demolition of homes of the accused or convicted without due process of law is unconstitutional. SC issues directions :   A. NOTICE i. No demolition should be carried out without a prior  show cause notice returnable either in accordance  with the time provided by the local municipal laws or  within 15 days’ time from the date of service of such  notice, whichever is later. ii. The notice shall be served upon the owner/occupier  by a registered post A.D. Additionally, the notice shall  also be affixed conspicuously on the outer portion of the structure in question…………   2024 KLT OnLine 2712 (SC) Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai & Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures Decided on 13th November, 2024 For judgment 'click here'  

An institution will not lose its minority status merely because it was created by a statute. SC 7 Judge Constitution Bench by a majority of 4:3 overrules S. Azeez Basha vs. Union Of India(1967)   Factors which must be used to determine if aminority ‘established’ an educational institution: i. The indicia of ideation, purpose and implementation must be satisfied. First, the idea for establishing an educational institution must have stemmed from a person or group belonging to the minority community; second, the educational institution must be established predominantly for the benefit of the minority community; and third, steps for the implementation of the idea must have been taken by the member(s) of the minority community; and   ii. The administrative-set up of the educational institution must elucidate and affirm (I) the minority character of the educational institution; and (II) that it was established to protect and promote the interests of the minority community.   AMU minority status to be decided by a regular Bench   Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal Hon'ble Chief Justice of India Justice  D.Y. Chandrachud,  Hon'ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna,  Hon'ble Justice Surya Kant,  Hon'ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble  Justice Dipankar Datta, Hon'ble Justice Manoj Misra  & Hon'ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma Decided on 8th November, 2024 For judgment click here

Eligibility criteria for recruitment cannot be altered mid-way unless permitted by the extant rules: If at all rule permits such change ensure compliance with Article 14.: SC Five Judge Constitution Bench    Tej Prakash Pathak And Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court And Ors Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Dr. D. Y Chandrachud , Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Mr. Justice PS Narasimha, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra Decided on 7th November, 2024

Can a person with a light motor vehicle (LMV) license legally drive a transport vehicle if it weighs 7,500 kg or less? SC Five Judge Constitution Bench answers in affirmative.   The final conclusions are as follows :  (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e[1]rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.   M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Dr. D. Y Chandrachud , Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Mr. Justice PS Narasimha, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra Decided on 6th November, 2024 For judgment click here

Whether privately owned property is a “material resource of the community”: SC Nine Judge Constitution Bench delivers judgment by a majority of 8:1: Justice Nagaratna concurs; Justice Dhulia dissents   “Not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of the community merely because it meets the qualifier of material needs. The inquiry about whether the resource in question falls within the ambit of Article 39 (b) must be content specific and subject to a non-exhaustive list of factors such as the nature of the resource and its characteristics, the impact of the resource in the well-being of the community, the scarcity of the resource and the consequences of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players.”   Property Owners Association And Ors v. State of Maharashtra  Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih Decided on 5th November, 2024

THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA HCKL / 5621 / 2023 - A7 Kochi -682031 Date: 30-10-2024 NOTICE Sub:- Implementation of 'Machine Scrutiny ' to WP (C) Cases (excluding Miscellaneous matters)- reg Ref:- High Court Notices of even number dated 06.07.2023, 10.07.2023 and 29.11.2023. ------------------ The High Court of Kerala with the object of enhancing the efficacy of the e-filing process has introduced 'Machine Scrutiny' in the matter of Bail Applications and Writ Appeals vide notices cited. Now, in continuation of the above, it is decided to extend Machine Scrutiny to WP(C) cases (excluding Miscellaneous matters) as well, w.e.f. 01.11.2024. In this regard, it is also informed that if any non-compliance with the rules or any defect is noticed after 'Machine Scrutiny', registration and listing, the Court Officer has the option to mark such non-compliance using a short order during the Court's proceedings. (By Order) Prabhathu Kumar B REGISTRAR(JUDICIAL) Registrar General in - charge To:- The Advocate General, Ernakulam. The Director General of Prosecutions & State Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam. The Additional Advocate Generals, Ernakulam (2 copies). The Additional Director General of Prosecutions, Ernakulam (2copies). The Deputy Solicitor General of India, Ernakulam. The President, Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, Ernakulam. The Chairman, Bar Council of Kerala, Ernakulam. The State Attorney, Advocate General's Office, Ernakulam. The Senior Counsel, Government of India (Taxes), Ernakulam. The President, Kerala High Court Senior Advocates' Association, Ernakulam. The President of Kerala Federation of Women Lawyers, Ernakulam. The Vice-Presidents, Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, Ernakulam. The Secretary, Rule Committee under Section 123 CPC, High Court. The Secretary, Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, Ernakulam. The General Secretary, Kerala High Court Senior Advocates' Association, Ernakulam. The Secretary, Indian Law Institute, Ernakulam. The Mediator - Co-ordinator, High Court Mediation Centre, Ernakulam The President, Kerala High Court Advocates’ Clerks’ Association, Ernakulam. The Registrars and the Additional Registrar (General Administration), High Court. The Director of the Kerala Judicial Academy, Athani. The Additional Director of the Kerala Judicial Academy, Athani. The Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, Ernakulam. The Director, Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ernakulam. The Deputy Director (IT), High Court. The Deputy Director of the Kerala Judicial Academy, Ernakulam The Assistant Director of the Kerala Judicial Academy, Ernakulam All Officers and Sections, High Court. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Ernakulam. The Private Secretary to the Chief Justice, High Court. The Protocol Officer, High Court. The Public Relations Officer, High Court. The Finance Officer, High Court The Manager (IT), High Court The Court Officer to the Chief Justice, High Court The Additional Public Relations Officer, High Court. The Private Secretaries to Judges, High Court. The Filing and Court Officers' sections, High Court. The IT (Technical Cell), High Court The Confidential Assistants to the Registrars, Director (KJA) and the Additional Registrar (General Administration). The Admn. Records Section, High Court The Notice Board, High Court The File/Stock. Copy submitted to : The Honourable the Chief Justice and the Honourable Judges

Kerala High Court issues notice regarding adding of *mandatory field* in Bail Application Filing Module for all pre-arrest bail applications to ascertain whether the accused is in India or abroad at the time of making the Bail Application   THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA HCKL/4575/2024-A7-HC KERALA Kochi -682031 Date: 29-10-2024 NOTICE   Sub: Mandatory field added in Bail Application Filing Module for all pre-arrest bail applications to ascertain whether the accused is in India or abroad at the time of making the Bail Application Ref: Order dated 01-10-2024 of the High Court in JPP No. 4/2024   As per the order cited, it was inter alia held that if the accused person is abroad at the time of making an application for pre-arrest bail under sub-section (1) of Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, the said material fact that possesses the potential to significantly influence the decision-making process of the Court and imposition of conditions as in clauses (i), (iii), etc. of sub-section (2) of Section 482 of BNSS, must be disclosed in such an application, failing which it would amount to suppression of material facts from the notice of the Court. Hence, in compliance with the said order, a mandatory field has been added in the Bail Application Filing Module for all pre-arrest bail applications to ascertain whether the applicant accused is in India or abroad at the time of making the Bail Application. The status of petitioners as to their being abroad at the time of filing the bail application shall be displayed in the docket. (By Order) P Krishna Kumar REGISTRAR GENERAL To:- The Advocate General, Ernakulam. The Director General of Prosecutions & State Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam. The Additional Advocates General, Ernakulam (2 copies). The Additional Director General of Prosecutions, Ernakulam (2 copies). The Deputy Solicitor General of India, Ernakulam. The President, Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, Ernakulam. The Chairman, Bar Council of Kerala, Ernakulam. The State Attorney, Advocate General's Office, Ernakulam. The Senior Counsel, Government of India (Taxes), Ernakulam. The President, Kerala High Court Senior Advocates' Association, Ernakulam. The President of Kerala Federation of Women Lawyers, Ernakulam. The Vice-Presidents, Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, Ernakulam The Secretary, Rule Committee under Section 123 CPC, High Court. The Secretary, Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, Ernakulam. The General Secretary, Kerala High Court Senior Advocates' Association, Ernakulam The Secretary, Indian Law Institute, Ernakulam. The Mediator-Co-ordinator, High Court Mediation Centre, Ernakulam The President, Kerala High Court Advocates’ Clerks’ Association, Ernakulam. The Registrars and the Additional Registrar (General Administration), High Court. The Director of the Kerala Judicial Academy, Athani. The Additional Director of the Kerala Judicial Academy, Athani. The Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, Ernakulam. The Director, Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ernakulam. The Deputy Director (IT), High Court. The Deputy Director of the Kerala Judicial Academy, Athani. The Assistant Director of the Kerala Judicial Academy, Athani. The Joint Registrars and Deputy Registrars, High Court The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Ernakulam. The Protocol Officer, High Court. The Public Relations Officer, High Court. The Private Secretary to the Chief Justice, High Court. The Principal Technical Officer, High Court The Assistant Registrar in charge of the Filing Section, High Court The Assistant Registrar in charge of the Court Officer's Section, High Court. The Assistant Registrar in charge of the Bail Application Section, High Court The Court Officer to the Chief Justice, High Court. The Private Secretaries to Judges, High Court. The Filing Scrutiny Officers, High Court. The Filing and Court Officer's Section, High Court. The IT Technical Cell, High Court. The Bail Application Section, High Court. The Confidential Assistants to the Registrars, Director (KJA) and the Additional Registrar (General Administration) The Administrative Records Section, High Court. The Notice Board, High Court The File/Stock File Copy submitted to:- The Honourable the Chief Justice and The Honourable Judges  

President appoints five new Judges as additional Judges of Kerala High Court. 1. Parameswara Panicker Krishna Kumar 2. ⁠Kodassery Veliyath Madom Jayakumar 3. ⁠Muralee Krishna Shankaramoole 4. ⁠Jobin Sebastian 5. ⁠Pandikkaran Varadaraja lyer Balakrishnan For notification click here

Happy Hours For States; SC Constitution Bench by a Majority of 8:1 Upholds the Power of States to Regulate Industrial Alcohol   SC nine judge bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, B.V. Nagarathna, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma And Augustine George Masih decided the question of whether “intoxicating liquor” in Entry 8 only includes potable alcohol, such as alcoholicbeverages or also includes alcohol which is used in the production of other products. In Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P (1990 (1) KLT OnLine 1009 (SC)), a Seven-Judge Bench held that denatured spirit is industrial alcohol and is outside the jurisdiction of States under Entry 8, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The correctness of the said judgment was answered through this reference.   The Court formulated six questions for adjudication by a larger Bench. They are reproduced below: a. Does Section 2 of the IDRA have any impact on the field covered by Section 18G of the same or Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule? b. Does Section 18G of the aforesaid Act fall under Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, or is it covered by Entry 33 of List III thereof? c. In the absence of any notified order by the Central government under Section 18G of the above Act, is the power of the State to legislate in respect of matters enumerated in Entry 33 of List III ousted? d. Does the mere enactment of Section 18G of the IDRA, give rise to a presumption that it was the intention of the Central government to cover the entire field in respect of Entry 33 of List III so as to oust the States’ competence to legislate in respect of matters relating thereto? e. Does the mere presence of Section 18G of the IDRA, oust the State’s power to legislate in regard to matters falling under Entry 33(a) of List III? f. Does the interpretation given in Synthetics (1990 (1) KLT OnLine 1009 (SC), in respect of Section 18G of the IDRA correctly state the law regarding the States’ power to regulate industrial alcohol as a product of the Scheduled industry under Entry 33 of List III in view of clause (a) thereof?   The majority judgment authored by CJI DY Chandrachud concluded as follows   “Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is both an industry-based entry and a product-based entry. The words that follow the expression “that is to say” in the Entry are not exhaustive of its contents. It includes the regulation of everything from the raw materials to the consumption of ‘intoxicating liquor’;   Parliament cannot occupy the field of the entire industry merely by issuing a declaration under Entry 52 of List I. The State Legislature’s competence under Entry 24 of List II is denuded only to the extent of the field covered by the law of Parliament under Entry 52 of List I;   Parliament does not have the legislative competence to enact a law taking control of the industry of intoxicating liquor covered by Entry 8 of List II in exercise of the power under Article 246 read with Entry 52 of List I;     The judgments of the Bombay High Court in FN Balsara v. State of Bombay, this Court in FN Balsara (1951 KLT OnLine  813 (SC)) and Southern Pharmaceuticals (1981 KLT OnLine 1079 (SC)) did not limit the meaning of the expression ‘intoxicating liquor’ to its popular meaning, that is, alcoholic beverages that produce intoxication. All the three judgments interpreted the expression to cover alcohol that could be noxiously used to the detriment of health;   The expression ‘intoxicating liquor’ in Entry 8 has not acquired a legislative meaning on an application of the test laid down in Ganon Dunkerley (1958 KLT OnLine 1305 (SC));   The study of the evolution of the legislative entries on alcohol indicates that the use of the expressions “intoxicating liquor” and “alcoholic liquor for human consumption” in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution was a matter well-thought of. It also indicates that the members of the Constituent Assembly were aware of use of the variants of alcohol as a raw material in the production of multiple products;   Entry 8 of List II is based on public interest. It seeks to enhance the scope of the entry beyond potable alcohol. This is inferable from the use of the phrase ‘intoxicating’ and other accompanying words in the Entry. Alcohol is inherently a noxious substance that is prone to misuse affecting public health at large. Entry 8 covers alcohol that could be used noxiously to the detriment of public health. This includes alcohol such as rectified spirit, ENA and denatured spirit which are used as raw materials in the production of potable alcohol and other products. However, it does not include the final product (such as a hand sanitiser) that contains alcohol since such an interpretation will substantially diminish the scope of other legislative entries;   The judgment in Synthetics (7J) (1990 (1) KLT OnLine 1009 (SC) is overruled in terms of this judgment;   Item 26 of the First Schedule to the IDRA must be read as excluding the industry of “intoxicating liquor”, as interpreted in this judgment;   The correctness of the judgment in Tika Ramji (1956 KLT OnLine 1018 (SC)) on the interpretation of word ‘industry’ as it occurs in the legislative entries does not fall for determination in this reference; and   The issue of whether Section 18G of the IDRA covers the field under Entry 33 of List III does not arise for adjudication in view of the finding that denatured alcohol is covered by Entry 8 of List II."   The dissent by Justice B.V. Nagarathna   Entry 33(a) – List III has to be read in the context of Entry 52 – List I. IDRA is relatable to Entry 52 – List I. Section 2 of the IDRA has a nexus and is connected with Section 18G of the said Act. Therefore, Entry 33(a) – List III is impacted by Section 2 read with Section 18G of the IDRA.   Section 18G of the IDRA is directly relatable to Entry 52 – List I which has to be read in the context of Section 2 of IDRA. The doctrine of occupied field applies and the legislative field under Entry 33(a) – List III is covered by the said provision on the basis of doctrine of occupied field under first part of Article 254 of the Constitution.   Even in the absence of any notified order by theCentral Government under Section 18G of the IDRA, the power of the States to legislate in respect of matters enumerated in Entry 33(a) – List III is ousted on the basis of the doctrine of occupied field as aforestated. On this aspect, the judgment of this Court in Synthetics and Chemicals (7J) is correct.   The mere enactment of section 18G of the IDRA gives rise to a presumption that it was the intention of the Parliament and Central Government to cover the entire field in respect of Entry 33(a) - List III so as to oust the States' competence to legislate in respect of matters relating thereto.   The mere presence of Section 18G of the IDRA would oust the State's power to legislate in regard to matters falling under Entry 33(a) - List III. The doctrine of occupied field applies.   The interpretation given in Synthetics andChemicals case, (1990) 1 SCC 109 in respect of Section 18G of the IDRA correctly states the law. Even with regard to “industrial alcohol” as a product which falls within “Fermentation Industries” in respect of which the Union has assumed control, in the absence of a notified order, the competence of the State to act under Entry 33- List III is denuded. Short edits by Adv. Ashly Harshad Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih State of U.P. & Ors v. M/S Lalta Prasad Vaish Decided on 23rd October, 2024 For judgment click here

Authorities exercising 'adjudicatory functions' cannot defend their orders in appeal -- Supreme Court   Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport Ltd. Decided on 18th October, 2024 For full judgment click here

The right to information about routine ways to make life meaningful and be educated on the adverse effects of child marriage falls under Article 21. Children are entitled to be aware of their rights and the ill effects that marriage unleashes on them. The entitlement of the child flows from the right to education.   Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action v.  Union of India & Ors. Decided on 18th October, 2024 For full judgment click here

Quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate with benchmark disability from being considered for admission to educational institutions.   Supreme Court allows PwD candidate with quantified disability to pursue MBBS Course.   2024 KLT OnLine 2487 (SC) Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India *Decided on 15th October, 2024* For judgment 'click here'

Latest Office Memorandum   Notaries appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 should desist themselves from executing marriage or divorce deeds as they are not appointed as Marriage Officers.   For full text click here

Kerala High Court Invalidates Government's Decision in Panchayat License Dispute Related to Vizhinjam Port Project   The short question was whether the Government could exercise its jurisdiction under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 against decision of the committee of the Grama Panchayat in the light of the bar created by Section 191(3) of the 1994 Act.    Kerala High Court ruled that an application filed under Section 191(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is not maintainable if the applicant has a remedy under Section 276 of the Act. The case involved the cancellation of a license granted by Aryanad Grama Panchayat to a company involved in the Vizhinjam Port project for a quarry license. The Panchayat revoked the license, and the company approached the government, which stayed the cancellation.   However, the Court found that the government lacked the authority to intervene under Section 191 as an alternative remedy was available under Section 276. The court declared the application filed before the government invalid and directed the company to seek remedy through the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.   Case Briefs by Adv. Ashly Harshad 2024 KLT OnLine 2462 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gopinath P. Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala Decided on 1st October, 2024 For Petitioner : Advs. D.Kishore, Meera Gopinath & R.Muraleekrishnan (Malakkara) For Respondents : Advs. Roshen.D.Alexander , Tina Alex Thomas, Harimohan, Kochurani James, Suman Chakravarthy, K. R. Deepa (Spl. Government Pleader) & Jasmine M. M (Government Pleader) For judgment 'click here'

Equity, leans towards equality, and the rule that the joint purchasers are equally entitled to property, is in consonance with this doctrine of equity.   2024 KLT OnLine 2451 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran & Hon’ble Mrs. Justice M.B. Snehalatha Treesa Poulose v. John Poulose Decided on 30th September 2024 For Appellants : Adv. S. Soman                                   For Respondents  : Adv. N.C. Joseph    For judgment 'click here'

In democratic nations, freedom to express one's views are respected. The rights of the journalists are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Merely because writings of a journalist are perceived as criticism of the Government, criminal cases should not be slapped against the writer.   2024 KLT OnLine 2426 (SC) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy & Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh Decided on 4th October, 2024 For judgment 'click here'

Kerala Forest Produce Transit (Amendment) Rules, 2024 For full text  click here Kerala State and Subordinate Services (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2024 For full text  click here

No caste based allotment of work in prisons: Supreme Court calls for reforms in prisons manuals across the country and deletion of "caste" column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts' prisoners' registers inside the prisons.   Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors. Decided on 3rd October, 2024 For full judgment 'click here'

The actual aggressor who initiated the violence and brought the victim to fight, cannot be heard to say that his atrocious acts which snatched the life of the victim, deserve the protection of the right of private defence  -- Kerala High Court.   2024 KLT OnLine 2410 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V & Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.Girish Thomas v. State of Kerala Decided on 30th September, 2024 For Petitioner : Advs. P.K. Varghese, Sanjana Rachel Jose & R.Rohith   For Respondents : Adv. Neema.T.V. (Sr.  Public Prosecutor)     For judgment 'click here'