1.What steps will State take to protect dignity of soldiers? Orissa High Court on assault of army officer, lawyer-fiancé:- The Orissa High Court emphasized the need for the state to ensure the dignity of soldiers, particularly in light of an assault case involving an army officer and a lawyer-fiancé. It called for strict action against offenders and reinforced the obligation to uphold respect and protection for military personnel.
2.Doctors must be protected from frivolous and unjust prosecution: Bombay High Court:- The Bombay High Court asserted the necessity of protecting doctors from frivolous and unjust prosecutions, emphasizing their critical role in healthcare. The court urged the establishment of clear guidelines to prevent misuse of legal provisions against medical professionals, advocating for a balanced approach that ensures both accountability and protection.
3.BCI mandates criminal background checks, biometric attendance, CCTV in law colleges:- The Bar Council of India (BCI) has mandated criminal background checks for students, biometric attendance systems, and CCTV surveillance in law colleges. These measures aim to enhance safety, ensure accountability, and maintain discipline within institutions, promoting a more secure and responsible educational environment for future legal professionals.
4.Deadline to give sanction for prosecution under UAPA mandatory, not mere formality: Supreme Court:- The Supreme Court stated that the deadline for granting sanction for prosecution under the UAPA is mandatory, not merely a formality. This ruling emphasizes the need for timely decisions to uphold justice, ensuring that legal processes are followed and protecting the rights of individuals accused under the Act.
5.Valmiki scam not a Centre-State dispute: Karnataka High Court refutes State’s argument against CBI probe:- The Karnataka High Court ruled that the Valmiki scam does not constitute a Centre-State dispute, rejecting the state’s argument against a CBI probe. The court emphasized the importance of a thorough investigation into the allegations, affirming the CBI’s jurisdiction to handle the case effectively.
6.”We want answers”: Supreme Court seeks explanation on resumption of stubble burning:- The Supreme Court expressed concern over the resumption of stubble burning and demanded explanations from relevant authorities. Highlighting the environmental impact and public health issues, the court called for immediate actions to address the practice, urging officials to provide clear answers and strategies to mitigate air pollution related to it.
7.We have to think about poor litigants; cannot hear you at midnight: Supreme Court to businessman:- The Supreme Court emphasized the need to consider the challenges faced by poor litigants, stating it cannot entertain cases at midnight. This remark was directed at a businessman seeking urgent relief, highlighting the court’s commitment to ensuring fair access to justice for all, regardless of their financial status.
8.Kerala High Court refuses to quash POCSO case against homestay owner for not reporting sexual assault of minors:- The Kerala High Court declined to quash a POCSO case against a homestay owner accused of failing to report a sexual assault involving minors. The court emphasized the importance of accountability and vigilance in protecting children, reinforcing that those in positions of responsibility must act to prevent such crimes.
9.Collegium recommends appointment of Justice Narendar G as Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court:- The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended Justice Narendar G for appointment as Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. This decision reflects confidence in his judicial capabilities and aims to strengthen the leadership within the high court, ensuring effective administration of justice in the region.
10.Contractors cannot be blacklisted over deficiencies, delays: Meghalaya High Court:- The Meghalaya High Court ruled that contractors cannot be blacklisted solely for deficiencies or delays in project execution without due process. The court emphasized the necessity of fair assessment and proper procedures before imposing such penalties, ensuring that contractors’ rights are protected in contractual agreements.
