Kerala govt put seditious charges on @RahulEaswar. In fact, the dictates of Kerala CM against Sabarimala temple is seditious on devotees across the world in all respect. What a man made disaster this Kerala govt is?
#SaveSabarimala#ReadytoWait
Bar Council of India has said that advocates who file AI-generated fake citations, fabricated quotations or non-existent judgments cannot escape professional liability by blaming technology.
Read here: https://t.co/YHJSHzblKD
#BreakingNews
Lawyers can use AI if...Supreme Court releases draft regulations for use of AI in courts, invites inputs
Read here: https://t.co/LpgeWqRBWU
BATTLE OF TROY LOST
I filed this Habeas Corpus case and appeared for the Prince of Romance — a man who fought relentlessly for his love. But alas, his Helen herself refused to live with him, and that shattered everything.
#SupremeCourt dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) concerning an interfaith live in relationship after the detenue personally appeared before the Court and stated that she did not wish to live with the petitioner.
@SuchitraMohant1
https://t.co/0r7Ebd07Do
Glad that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to allow the Review Petition filed by me for hearing in open Court and has issued notice in the matter.
We thank our advocates @jsaideepak & @suvidutt for their erudite presentation on rights of devotees with respect to their sampradaya (art 26) in this matter. We also thank the legal team of @indiccollective led by @trramesh & @SundaramurtiRa1 for their guidance. Swamy sharanam
Although appearing before a Bench led by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, is part of my daily professional routine, this matter was particularly significant. It involved a seminal constitutional challenge with far-reaching implications for the structural design of the prosecution under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
I had the privilege of making submissions on behalf of my client, Mr. Subeesh P. S., a practising lawyer, challenging Sections 20(2)(a) and (b) of the Sanhita.
In my respectful view, the case raised a foundational question concerning the structural architecture of prosecution under the new criminal procedure regime. My submission was that permitting those who “are or have been” Sessions Judges to occupy executive-controlled prosecutorial posts disrupts functional autonomy and undermines the doctrine of separation of powers embodied in Articles 50 and 235 of the Constitution of India. The concern was never about individual competence, but about preserving institutional boundaries and safeguarding the independence necessary to guarantee a fair trial under Articles 14 and 21.
While the Court was not persuaded and dismissed the Writ Petition, I remain respectfully disappointed that the broader structural implications for separation of powers and prosecutorial autonomy did not find acceptance. Constitutional litigation often raises questions whose full implications unfold over time.
I am grateful to my client for the faith reposed in me and for the opportunity to assist the Court on an issue central to constitutional jurisprudence and criminal justice administration.
I also express my deep appreciation for Deepika Singh for her extensive research and meticulous drafting, and Disha Purii for her consistent assistance during client conferences.
#supremecourtofindia #bnss #prosecution #judges #criminaljustice
Lawyer moves Supreme Court against BNSS provision allowing judges to head prosecution offices under State
report by @RitwikinCourt
https://t.co/KVk8ziLrZc