Pegasus Probe Committee Report To Remain Sealed In Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has decided to keep sealed the reports submitted by the technical committee and the Overseeing Judge (former Supreme Court judge Justice RV Raveendran) who were tasked with probing the allegations of surveillance of mobile devices using the Israeli spyware Pegasus."The sealed covers were opened in the Court and we read out some portions of the said Reports. Thereafter,...

DNA Test | Proof Of Paternity Not Sufficient To Prove Marriage/ Domestic Relationship Between Parties Under DV Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that conducting DNA test and proving child's paternity would not be enough to prove the existence of a marriage or domestic relationship in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, when paternity or legitimacy in itself was not a fact in issue.Justice Kauser Edappagath while holding so, observed that under the DV Act, what is required to be proved...

Touching Child's Private Parts With Sexual Intent Sufficient To Attract POCSO Act, Absence Of Injury Not Relevant: Bombay High Court

Merely touching the private parts of a child with sexual intent is enough for it to be construed as sexual assault under section 7 of the POCSO Act and a medical certificate demonstrating an injury is not mandatory, the Bombay High Court has held. "The absence of injury mentioned in the medical certificate will not make any difference to her case because the very nature of the offence...

Bilkis Bano Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Gujarat Govt Over Convicts' Release [Video]

...

Pegasus : Centre Did Not Cooperate, Probe Committee Tells Supreme Court [Video]

...

PMLA Review: Supreme Court Agrees To Review Two Issues, Notice Issued To Centre [Video]

...

Gujarat Police FIR- "Need To Test Whether Incarceration Is Required": Supreme Court To Hear Teesta Setalvad's Bail Plea On Aug 30 After SG Seeks Adjournment

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday has deferred the petition filed by Teesta Setalvad seeking bail in the case registered by Gujarat ATS alleging falsification of records to implicate high state functionaries in the Gujarat riots conspiracy case. A Bench comprising of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia adjourned the matter to next Tuesday, August 30 after...

Delhi High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Batch Of Pleas Concerning Agnipath Scheme

The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought response from the Central Government in a bunch of pleas challenging its Agnipath Scheme and seeking resumption and enrolment as per previous recruitment scheme in defence services.A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad granted four weeks time to the Centre for filing reply in the pleas, while...

Breaking: Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeals By Whatsapp, Meta Against CCI Investigation

The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed the appeals filed by WhatsApp and its parent company Meta (formerly Facebook) against a single bench order declining to interfere with CCI's investigation into WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy.While pronouncing the order, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the appeals are devoid...

Special Court Calls ED "Vengeful Complainant", Discharges Two Accused In PMLA Case

Observing that the Enforcement Directorate was a "vengeful" complainant, a special court at Mumbai discharged two developers accused in the Yes Bank Money laundering case based on a clean chit in the predicate offence. Special Judge MG Deshpande relied on Supreme Court's recent judgement in Vijay Mandal Chaudhary & Ors. vs Union of India, which has held that a case under PMLA,...

Freebies v. Welfare: What Happened In Supreme Court Today? [Video]

...

"Unduly Harsh" : Why Supreme Court Quashed Blanket Ban On Benami Transactions?

The effect of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case Union of India vs M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd is that there is no longer a blanket prohibition of benami transactions. The Court has declared the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, which imposed a blanket ban on benami transactions, as unconstitutional for being "unduly harsh", "disproportionate"...