The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted permission to a 35-year-old woman to terminate her 25-week-old pregnancy at a private hospital of her choice despite certain technicalities in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) rules that prevents private institutions from performing such procedures for pregnancies beyond 24 weeks [XYZ v State of Maharashtra]

The bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale, while allowing the plea, acknowledged the petitioner’s right to make decisions about her body.

"Conscious of the right of the Petitioner to reproductive freedom, her autonomy over the body and her right to choice, the medical condition of the Petitioner and having considered the findings and opinion of the Medical Board, we permit the Petitioner to medically terminate the pregnancy," the Court said.

The petitioner, currently in her 25th week of pregnancy, sought permission for medical termination due to severe fetal abnormalities. A medical board at Sir JJ Group of Hospitals and Grant Medical College reviewed her case and recommended the procedure, noting that the fetus had skeletal dysplasia and other conditions would result in significant post-natal morbidity including the need for multiple corrective surgeries.

The board also noted potential risks of infertility for the child and affirmed that the petitioner was physically fit for the procedure.

However, despite receiving approval from the medical board, the petitioner was unable to undergo the procedure due to a lacuna in the MTP law.

The current MTP Rules allow private institutions to perform termination of pregnancies only up to 24 weeks. There is no provision under the Rules which permits private hospitals to seek approval for performing procedures beyond the 24-week limit, leaving the petitioner unable to secure the procedure at her chosen institution—Cloudnine Hospital in Malad.

The Form A required to be submitted by the hospital for permission for such procedure contains provision only for pregnancies up to 24 weeks.

The counsel for the petitioner, advocate Meenaz Kakalia, argued that the woman should be allowed to choose the institution and must be able to undergo a termination procedure of her choice as permitted by the guidance notes issued by the Central government.

She referred to the guidance note for cases involving termination beyond 20 weeks, which allows for stoppage of the fetal heartbeat if necessary to avoid the fetus being delivered alive.

She further pointed out that this procedure should be available as part of the medical termination process and requested that the court permit the medical practitioner to follow these guidelines.

She also explained that Cloudnine Hospital has the required facilities and approvals to conduct the procedure including compliance with the necessary MTP Rules.

In support of the petitioner’s request, Cloudnine Hospital submitted an affidavit confirming that it meets all the required criteria under the MTP Rules and has necessary facilities for the same.

The affidavit stated that the hospital has the necessary approval under Form 'B' of the MTP Rules from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to conduct pregnancy terminations.

It also confirmed that the hospital has facilities for performing sonographies, including invasive procedures, and was licensed under the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 2003 as required by the MTP Rules.

In light of the urgency, the Court permitted the termination to take place at Cloudnine Hospital despite the gap in law.

The Court also allowed the petitioner’s chosen medical practitioner to follow the guidelines outlined by the Union of India including the option to stop the fetal heartbeat if needed.

The Court left the issue of the lacuna in the MTP law open for future consideration and scheduled further hearings on March 10.

Advocate Meenaz Kakalia instructed by Shruti Kumar appeared for the petitioner.

Additional Government Pleader Pooja Patil appeared for the State.

Advocate Purnima Awasthi represented Union of India.

[Read Order]

Third-party litigation funding in India will likely continue unregulated for the foreseeable future as the Central government revealed today that no regulatory framework is under consideration at present.

The Centre also stated that it is also not examining the potential of litigation funding to address high litigation costs and case pendency.

This was revealed in response to parliamentary question posed by Rajya Sabha member representing the Trinamool Congress, Mohammed Nadimul Haque. The response by Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Law & Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal stated,

"At present, there is no proposal under consideration of the Government for establishment of a legal and regulatory framework to facilitate Third Party Funding of litigation in the country and further, no examination of the potential of Third Party Litigation Funding as a means to address high litigation costs and pendency of cases has been carried out by the Government."

Third-party litigation funding involves financing the legal costs of a party to a case by entities who are not parties to the dispute, in return for a share of the damages awarded or the settlement.

While it is a relatively new field in India, its origins go back a few decades in other parts of the world, especially in the United Kingdom and Australia.

In 2018, in Bar Council of India v. AK Balaji, the Supreme Court of India implicitly recognised the practice.  However, there is still no legislation explicitly regulating third-party litigation funding and with the government's answer in Parliament, it is clear that it will continue to function in murky waters.

Despite this, litigation financing is evolving at a considerable pace as LegalPay founder Kundan Shahi explained in this interview with Bar and Bench.

[Read Question and Answer]

A Delhi Court on Thursday granted interim protection from arrest to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Member Legislative Assembly (MLA) Amanatullah Khan in a case in which he has been accused of obstructing police from arresting an accused.

Additional Sessions Judge Jitendra Singh said the allegation of the police team that Khan was instrumental in facilitating the escape of an accused person in another case "does not seem to carry weight" since that accused was already on anticipatory bail in the case in which police had gone to arrest him.

Hence, the Court ordered that no coercive steps be taken against Amanatullah Khan till the next date of hearing, which is February 24. Meanwhile, it directed the AAP MLA to join investigation.

"This Court is of the considered opinion that applicant has made out a case for interim protection till the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, the applicant is directed to join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer."

Further, the Court directed the Investigating Officer to procure and produce the CCTV Footage in and around the place of incident for determining the nature and gravity of the allegations.

Khan had been issued a notice by the police for his appearance at Jamia Nagar Police Station today. Apprehending arrest, he moved the Rouse Avenue Court for anticipatory bail.

As per the FIR, the police team had reached the place of incident at 03:00 PM on February 10 for the arrest of one Shavez Khan, a person accused in relation to a 2018 FIR.

As per the police, Amanatullah Khan along with 20 to 25 persons then reached the spot and obstructed the police when they were trying to arrest Shavez Khan.

The public prosecutor today opposed Amanatullah Khan's bail plea. He sought time to examine the Investigating Officer who filed the chargesheet in 2018 FIR and verify whether any supplementary chargesheet had been filed against Shavez Khan.

Judge Singh examined the orders passed in Shavez Khan's case and found that he was admitted to anticipatory bail on July 30 in 2018.

Thus, the Court opined that allegation against Amanatullah Khan does not seem be correct and granted him interim protection from arrest.

Advocates Rajat Bhardwaj, Md. Irshad, Kaustubh Khanna, Saurav Kakroda and Dilshad Ali represented Amanatullah Khan.

Senior Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava and Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat represented Delhi Police.

[Read Order]

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Jasti Chelameswar was known to be a man of candour even as a sitting judge, and this was on display during the recent Wayanad Literature Festival held in December 2024.

In a talk with Member of Parliament John Brittas on the topic Court and Politics, Justice Chelameswar gave a very brief but sarcastic response to a question about the stance of former CJI DY Chandrachud on the Places of Worship Act.

"Justice Chandrachud and his colleagues as part of Constitution Bench in 2019 say that Places of Worship Act is sacrosanct and the same judge in 2022 says that the judgment does not prevent anybody from digging up or doing a survey. Now there is litigation of at least 11 places and it has created riots in many places. How do you view this?" Brittas asked Justice Chelameshwar.

"You have been referring to one particular individual's name. I don't think it is worth spending so much of time on that name," Justice Chelameswar replied.

He also spoke about the ideological and political inclination of judges creeping into their judicial duties.

"Partisan politics which are so blatant. There was an instance when a judge spoke highly about an organisation, quit his job, joined a political party, contested elections and came to Lok Sabha. Another judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, attends a cultural organisation's meet, he makes inflammable statements. Do you think the system is, the values are getting eroded? Do you appreciate these things in the name of having political awareness?" Brittas asked.

"Certainly not. I may have my own political preferences. But once I sat in that chair, I believe, subject to contrary opinion from public, that my political affiliations or past affiliations did not interfere with my decision making. If somebody is not following it, I certainly don't agree that is the right way. The right way is to keep it (political preferences) away," he said.

[Watch Full Video]

The Bombay High Court on Thursday directed the State to make the consumer commission in Palghar district operational within four weeks.

The Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre also directed the State to submit a compliance affidavit within two weeks after the Commission is made operational.

The order was passed after the State filed an affidavit informing the Bench that the forum has been established through a notification on February 4, 2025, and a separate notification of February 10 has determined the staffing structure.

The State assured the court that the commission would be fully functional within two weeks.

The petitioner, Datta Ranba Abode, had approached the court last year requesting the establishment of the consumer commission. He highlighted that although Palghar district was created on August 1, 2014, no commission had been set up in the district.

While a room in the collectorate office was been allocated for the commission, the State government failed to formally notify it as a consumer redressal forum, he contended.

The Court then asked the State to take measures for establishment of the consumer commission in Palghar.

The Union Law Ministry has drafted the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and circulated the same inviting feedback from the public.

The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, aims to address contemporary challenges in the legal profession, enhance transparency, and align legal education and practice with global best practices, states the press release issued by the Ministry.

To encourage public participation in the legislative process, the government has invited comments and feedback on the draft bill. A tabular statement detailing the existing provisions and proposed amendments has also been prepared for reference.

Stakeholders and the public have been asked to submit their views via email to dhruvakumar.1973@gov.in and impcell-dla@nic.in by February 28, 2025.

As part of its ongoing legal reforms, the Department of Legal Affairs has proposed amendments focusing on improving legal education and ensuring that lawyers are well-equipped to navigate the evolving demands of the profession, the press release states.

The objective is to elevate professional standards and ensure that the legal profession continues to contribute towards a just and equitable society, it adds.

The new provisions introduced in the 2025 draft Bill include:

• Legal practitioner to include corporate lawyers [amendment of Section 2(i)] - apart from litigating lawyers, the Bill proposes to include any law graduate doing legal work in any private or public organization including but not limited to statutory and autonomous bodies, domestic and foreign law firms and corporate entities" under the ambit of "legal practitioner".

• Mandatory bar association registration (Section 33A) – Advocates practicing before any court, tribunal, or authority must register with a Bar Association where they usually practice. If they change their place of practice or area of law, they must inform their previous Bar Association within 30 days. Advocates can vote in only one Bar Association.

• Ban on court boycotts (Section 35A) – Advocates and Bar Associations cannot call for or participate in court boycotts or obstruct court proceedings. Violating this rule will be considered misconduct and lead to disciplinary action. However, advocates may hold symbolic protests or one-day strikes as long as they don’t disrupt court work or affect clients' rights.

• Liability for misconduct (Section 45B) – If a person suffers a loss due to an advocate’s deliberate actions or misconduct, they can file a complaint under the regulations set by the Bar Council of India to determine the advocate’s liability.

• Government's power to direct BCI (Section 49B) – The Central government can issue directions to the Bar Council of India to ensure proper implementation of the Act and its rules.

• Penalty for unauthorised practice (Section 45) – Anyone who practices in a court or before an authority without being legally entitled to do so can face imprisonment for up to one year and/or a fine of up to two lakh rupees. (previously, the imprisonment term was six months.)

• Power of Central government to make rules (Section 49A) – The Central government can make rules through a notification in the Official Gazette to implement this Act, including matters under the authority of the Bar Council of India or State Bar Councils. A new addition allows the government to frame rules regarding the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers into India.

The Advocates Act, 1961, was originally enacted to regulate the legal profession, safeguard client interests and maintain professional standards. It also led to the establishment of the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to oversee the conduct and discipline of advocates across the country.

Back in 2023, the Lok Sabha had passed the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2023 to repeal the Legal Practitioners Act of 1879 and amend the Advocates Act, 1961. 

[Access Bill Here]

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday quashed the criminal case filed against journalist and Republic News editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami by the Bengaluru police last year on allegations that a fake news report about Chief Minister Siddaramaiah was aired by Republic TV.

Justice M Nagaprasanna today termed the criminal case an abuse of the legal process on the face of it and quashed the case.

The judge had earlier granted interim relief to Goswami after the news anchor filed a plea to quash the case. Goswami's petition was allowed today.

"Court wants to know what is the offence? Absolutely nothing, abuse (of process of law) on its face," the judge orally observed today before informing that he is quashing the case.

The FIR against Goswami was registered following a private complaint made by Karnataka Congress member Ravindra MV.

Ravindra had alleged that on March 27 last year, Republic TV Kannada, aired a news story claiming that traffic in the MG Road area in Bengaluru was stopped to enable passage for Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and, hence, an ambulance was not given the right of way. However, at that time, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah was not in Bengaluru. He was in Mysuru, the complainant had said.

Goswami was booked by the police under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the offence of having made statements “creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.”

During the earlier hearings, Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, appearing for Goswami, had told the Court that the news report was deleted as soon as the channel realised it was incorrect.

Shyam had also told the Court that the complainant had been overenthusiastic and had even “suggested” in the complaint about which provision of the IPC should be invoked against Goswami.

The Court had, at the time, observed that the offences under Section 505 could not be invoked in the present case even in its “remotest form" and the case was an example of reckless registration of crime by the complainant.

The single-judge had added that if such complaints are allowed to be made, it would amount to an abuse of the process of the law.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that a wife’s love and affection for someone other than her husband does not amount to adultery unless she is in a physical relation with such person.

Adultery necessarily has to involve sexual intercourse, Justice GS Ahluwalia held.

Hence, the judge rejected a husband’s argument that since his wife was in love with somebody else, she was not entitled to maintenance.

The Court said that Section 144(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) makes it clear that only if the wife is proved to be living in adultery, then the maintenance amount can be denied. 

“Adultery necessary means sexual intercourse. Even if a wife is having a love and affection towards somebody else without any physical relations, then that by itself cannot be sufficient to hold that the wife is living in adultery,” the Court said in the judgment dated January 17.

The Court was hearing a revision petition moved by the husband against a family court’s order directing him to pay an interim maintenance of ₹4,000 to his wife. He said he works as a Ward Boy and earns only ₹8,000.

The Court was also told that she was already getting ₹4,000 after an order was passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, the interim maintenance of ₹4,000 awarded under Section 125 of the CrPC was on a higher side.

However, the Court said the salary certificate issued by the hospital where the man is working was not duly proved.

“In the said certificate, the place of issuance and date of issuance are not mentioned. Therefore, unless and until that salary certificate is duly proved by the authorities who has issued the same, it is difficult for this Court to rely on the said certificate at this stage.” 

Further, the Court observed that the man has not argued that he is not an able-bodied person.

“Meager income of the husband cannot be a criteria to deny maintenance. If the applicant has married a girl knowing fully well that he is not competent to even fulfil his own daily needs then for that he himself is responsible but if he is an able bodied person then he has to earn something to maintain his wife or to pay the maintenance amount,” the single-judge said.

The Court also refused to accept the husband's claim that the wife was earning by running a beauty parlour. 

“The applicant has not filed any document to show that the wife of the applicant is having any property where she can run a beauty parlour. The applicant has not filed any document to show that how much money she is earning from that beauty parlour. The matter is yet to be decided by leading evidence. Mere bald submission that wife is running a beauty parlour is not sufficient to deny interim maintenance to her, specifically when no document has been filed to show that either the wife of the applicant is running a beauty parlour in a shop owned by her or in a shop taken by her on a rent,” it said.

On the claim that the man has been dispossessed of his family properties, the Court said he is still residing with his father and public notice of dispossession was a camouflage. 

The Court suspected that it may have been issued on the basis of legal advice. On the quantum of maintenance, the Court said it is a well established principle of law that a wife is entitled for maintenance under every statute.

“Since the court below has taken note of the maintenance awarded to the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court committed a material illegality by awarding interim maintenance @ Rs.4,000," the Court ruled.

Consequently, it dismissed the criminal revision petition.

Advocate Vitthal Rao Jumre represented the petitioner.

[Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court on January 30 expressed concern over the lack of decorum in virtual hearings and urged the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) to sensitise lawyers on proper conduct.

The Court took note of the situation after an advocate sought to represent appellants in a case while standing in a park with a mobile phone.

A Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that while videoconferencing is encouraged to ease the burden on lawyers appearing in multiple courts across Delhi, they must maintain proper court etiquette.

Despite repeated reminders in the daily cause list, many lawyers fail to follow protocol, the Court added.

"Quite often, on account of connectivity issues at the end of counsel appearing through videoconferencing the counsel remains inaudible. Often, the video is not switched on. The hybrid courts also are courts only. Even in the daily cause list of this Court, specific directions to maintain decorum while appearing through videoconferencing are circulated everyday. But to no avail."

During the dictation of the order, the advocate in question turned off his video, prompting the Court to refuse to mark his appearance in the case. However, the Court refrained from dismissing the appeal to avoid penalising the litigant for their lawyer’s actions.

"...Although that can call for dismissal of the appeal in default, but doing so would cause harm to the litigant who is not at fault. As such, I have examined the record."

The present case involved a dispute over a ₹5 lakh loan. The appellants admitted receiving the money via cheque but claimed it was repayment for an earlier cash loan given to the respondent.

The Court, however, found no reliable evidence of the alleged cash transaction and questioned why a cash loan would be repaid by cheque.

"Prima facie, there is no reliable evidence of the alleged cash loan given by the appellants to the respondent. One also fails to understand as to why a cash loan would be paid back through cheque."

The respondent’s counsel accepted notice, and the case was listed for the next hearing on July 22. However, the Court clarified that there was no stay on the operation of the judgment.

Additionally, the Registry was directed to circulate relevant portions of the order to the Delhi High Court Bar Association and district bar associations, urging them to sensitise lawyers about proper conduct in hybrid court proceedings.

Advocate Shivam Goel appeared for respondent.

[Read Order]

The Supreme Court recently granted bail to a former Border Security Force (BSF) officer, Romesh Kumar, who was arrested in March 2021 in the Handwara narco-terror case. The case involves allegations that Kumar received cash proceeds from illegal cross-border drug sales while he was on deputation with the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) [Romesh Kumar v. Union of India].

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan granted Kumar bail after noting that the trial against him was unlikely to conclude soon since only 6 of 361 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the trial court so far.

Pertinently, the Court questioned the "strange manner" in which the accused was implicated, by having witnesses identify his photo instead of conducting a test identification parade.

The Court also noted that Kumar did not have any criminal antecedents.

It, therefore, granted him bail on strict conditions including the deposit of his passport, that he regularly attends trial court hearings and cooperates with the trial court for the prompt completion of trial.

"If the appellant (Kumar) delays the trial in any manner, it will be open for the respondent to apply for cancellation of bail granted to the appellant," the top court added.

In March 2021, Kumar was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on allegations that he had links to terror outfits carrying out cross-border drug smuggling activities after ₹91 lakhs of cash was reportedly found buried in agricultural land belonging to him in Jammu and Kashmir.

A chargesheet filed by the NIA in August 2021 named him as the fourth accused. Kumar and other co-accused presently face charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

The NIA has alleged that he was part of a deep-rooted conspiracy to procure and sell narcotics drugs, to generate funds for terror activities in association with operatives of banned terrorist outfits such as Lashkar-E-Taiba (LeT) and the Hizb-ulMujahideen (HM).

In May 2024, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court rejected his bail plea after noting that at the time, it was not possible for the Court to conclude that Kumar was not part of the alleged acts of narcotic terrorism only because there was no direct connection between him and LeT operatives in Pakistan.

Kumar, therefore, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court

The apex court granted him relief on February 7.

Notably, the Supreme Court Bench also expressed doubts over the "strange" manner in which Kumar was implicated in the case, by having witnesses identify him through photographs instead of conducting a proper test identification parade (TIP).

"Reliance is placed on photo identification memo which records that certain witnesses were shown photograph of the appellant and the witnesses identified the photograph. Prima facie, we find that this is a very strange and doubtful procedure adopted during the investigation. It is not the case of the respondent that Test Identification Parades (TIP) were conducted in which witnesses identified the appellant," the February 7 ruling said.

The Court, however, clarified that its prima facie observation on this aspect should not influence the trial court's verdict in the matter.

The top court also noted that there appeared to be no conclusive material to indicate that the ₹91 lakh allegedly recovered from Kumar's land was drug money.

"There is alleged recovery of sum of ₹91,00,000 from the appellant. As of today, nothing is shown to us to link the said money with the offence," the Court said.

The Bench added that even a witness/ approver has purportedly said that he was unaware of why Kumar was made an accused in this case.

The Court proceeded to grant Kumar bail by relying on the legal principles laid down in the 2021 case of Union of India v. KA Najeeb, after emphasising that its prima facie observations regarding the probe against Kumar must not be viewed as any finding on the merits of the case.

Kumar was represented by Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat and advocates Talha Abdul Rahman, Umair A Andrabi, Mreganka Kukreja, Tanisha, Abhishek Babbar, Naseer H Jafri, M Shaz Khan, Sudhanshu Tewari, Rafid Akhter, Faizan Ahmad, Miran Ahmed, Dilwar H Barlaskar, Deepesh Kasana and Mohd Mohsin.

Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare and advocates Rajat Nair, Chitvan Singhal, Swati Ghildiyal, Kartikeya Asthana, Adarsh Kr. Pandey and Arvind Kumar Sharma (AOR) appeared for the Union of India (NIA).

[Read Order]