After spending over three decades with JSA Advocates & Solicitors, Amit Kapur is joining Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (CAM) as Senior Partner, the Head of the firm's Delhi office and Chair of its National Disputes Practice.

We have reached out to Kapur, CAM Managing Partner Cyril Shroff and JSA Joint Managing Partners Amar Gupta and Vivek Chandy for comment.

Confirming Amit Kapur's decision to resign, Joint Managing Partner Vivek Chandy said,

"Amit is a very good friend. He is going with our full blessings, and we wish him all the best."

Kapur had led JSA's Infrastructure and Regulatory practice since 1997, specialising in energy - including power, energy transition and renewables - environment, with a focus on climate change; transport; communication; municipal infrastructure; development projects; public procurement; and public-private Partnerships.

Throughout his career, he has advised governments; developmental financial institutions such as the World Bank, PPIAF and ADB; competition and sector regulators; and leading corporates like the Adani Group, Reliance ADA Group, Tata Group, Essar, SembCorp, MB Power, Bajaj Energy, CLP and Torrent.

During his time at JSA, Kapur had served as Joint Managing Partner for two terms between 2019 and 2025.

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim protection from coercive action to Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and Member of Parliament (MP) Abhishek Banerjee in a forgery case relating to the appointment of party’s leader in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly.

Justice Kausik Chanda, however, asked Banerjee to appear before the CID by 6 PM today, as per a report by the PTI.

The Court also said that he will have to join the investigation as and when asked by the probe agency. 

Banerjee, the party's General Secretary, had approached the Court last week after some TMC MLAs alleged that their signatures on a resolution about the choice of Leader of Opposition were forged. 

The party is undergoing a split currently after it recently lost the Assembly elections to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)

Banerjee's counsel today urged the Court to protect him from arrest and also agreed to cooperate with the investigation. The Court acceded to the prayer and listed the matter for hearing after two weeks.

The Bombay High Court today observed that access to social media does not entitle individuals to publish content that could defame others, whether private citizens or celebrities, in the backdrop of a dispute between actor Salman Khan and his neighbour in Panvel [Salman Khan v. Ketan Kakkad & Ors.].

A single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh was hearing an appeal filed by Khan against a civil court order refusing to grant him interim relief in a defamation suit he filed against his neighbour Ketan Kakkad over tweets and YouTube videos concerning a property dispute.

The judge indicated that parties should refrain from litigating their disputes on social media and instead pursue remedies before appropriate legal forums. 

She also suggested that Kakkad consider deleting tweets and videos relating to the dispute.

The Bench expressed disapproval of the continued circulation of such content and underscored that judicial time ought not to be spent on examining whether such videos should remain online.

It noted that even if the content had been uploaded by third parties, steps could be taken to have it removed through intermediaries.

The Court has posted the matter for further hearing on July 6. 

The dispute concerns adjoining properties in Panvel, where Salman Khan owns a farmhouse. 

His neightbour, Ketan Kakkad, alleged that Khan violated environmental norms and blocked access to his property. Kakkad also claims to have approached authorities on this issue and that no action was taken despite this.

Kakkad subsequently posted tweets and participated in YouTube interviews to talk about the dispute.

Salman Khan filed a defamation suit against such comments. He contended that the videos and posts shared by Kakkad are not only defamatory but also communally provocative. 

It was submitted that the videos contain false, speculative and inflammatory material, including references intended to provoke communal sentiments against Khan. 

The Court was also informed that the content in question had garnered significant viewership and engagement online.

The defamation suit also impleads multiple social media platforms, including Facebook, X, Google and YouTube.

Khan has claimed that Kakkad’s allegations arose after a proposed land transaction involving a plot adjacent to Khan’s farmhouse was cancelled by authorities on grounds of illegality. 

According to Khan, Kakkad thereafter began making baseless allegations that the cancellation was orchestrated by Khan and his family.

Kakkad has opposed the defamation plea, arguing that his statements are based on facts relating to Khan’s property and do not amount to defamation. 

It has also been contended that Khan, as a public figure, has placed details of his property in the public domain.

Advocates Chirag Mody, Parag Khandhar, Chandrima Mitra, Tapan Radkar and Zara Dhanboora, briefed by DSK Legal, appeared for Khan.

Advocates Abha Singh and Aditya Pratap Singh appeared for Kakkad.

State Vice President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has moved the Kerala High Court challenging the composition and functioning of the Kerala State Waqf Board. [Shone George v. State of Kerala].

According to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition moved by George, the State government has not appointed two non-Muslim members to the Board as is statutorily required following the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act.

This makes the functioning of the Board unconstitutional and renders all of its administrative, supervisory, and quasi-judicial decisions null and void, the PIL states.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM today granted time for the Government Pleader to get instructions on the matter and directed the respondent State authorities to file their response by the next posting date.

The primary contention raised by George in his PIL is based on Section 14(1) of the United Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, following its 2025 amendment.

The Amendment Act, which came into force on April 8 last year introduced a mandatory requirement under Section 14(1) to include at least two non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board, excluding ex-officio members.

While considering challenges to the 2025 Amendment Act, the Supreme Court did not stay the operation of this requirement, but it imposed an upper limit of three non-Muslim members on State Waqf Boards.

According to George's PIL, the Kerala government has deliberately flouted this statutory condition by nominating a Board consisting of only Muslims. 

The PIL stated that through a Government Order (GO) dated February 4, 2026, the State government appointed only nine members, all of whom are Muslim and concluded the order with a promise that the remaining two members would be appointed shortly.

George argued that a mere promise of future compliance cannot legitimise the current illegal functioning of the Board.

"Since the Board has not been constituted as per the explicit provisions of the Statute, it fundamentally lacks jurisdiction. The Kerala State Waqf Board holds extensive administrative, supervisory, and quasi-judicial control, including the power to settle management schemes, appoint or remove mutawallis, and take over lands. As the Waqf Board itself is defectively and illegally formed, there arises a critical situation wherein any order, decision, or proceeding carried out by the Board is an absolute nullity and void ab initio," the PIL reads.

George argued that the illegal functioning of the Board has also disrupted public order in the State as it continues to take action in relation to the Munambam waqf land dispute which affects over 600 families.

The PIL further stated that the State government has chosen to not act even though it is vested with clear powers under Sections 97 and 99 of the Waqf Act to issue binding directions or supersede a non-compliant Board.

Therefore, George sought a declaration from the Court that the functioning of the Kerala State Wagqf Tribunal is in violation of Section 14(1) of the Waqf Act as amended in 2025 and that all decisions that were taken by the illegally constituted Waqf Board are null and void.

He also sought directions to the State government to immediately nominate the statutorily mandated two non-Muslim members to the Waqf Board.

The PIL will be heard by the Bench after two weeks.

George is being represented by Senior Advocate Santhosh Mathew and advocates Shinto Mathew Abraham, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Mathew Nevin Thomas, Kurian Antony Mathew, Karthik Rajagopal, Leah Rachel Ninan, Noel Ninan, Aparnna S, Adeen Nazar, Arun Joseph Mathew, Rohan Mathew, Veena Raveendran, and Karthika Maria.

[Live Coverage]

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Allahabad High Court judgment against Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad IAS whom the High Court had censured for attempting to stop police reforms.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul Chandurkar passed the stay order on an appeal filed by Prasad.

Prasad is considered to be Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s most trusted and powerful bureaucrat.

The High Court had said that its judgment be forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for consideration while assessing Prasad's suitability for future assignments.

The top court today stayed these directions.

The judgment under challenge was delivered by Justice Vinod Diwakar of High Court on June 3.

He held that the conduct of Prasad prima facie appeared to be a "deliberate and calculated attempt" to undermine the authority of the court.

Justice Diwakar said that the implementation of police reforms suggested by the Court has repeatedly met resistance at the administrative level in UP.

“The record placed before the Court indicates that, on more than one occasion, judicial initiatives intended to strengthen the quality, fairness, and accountability of criminal investigations have not received the degree of institutional support that would ordinarily be expected from the authorities entrusted with civil administration,” the High Court said.

In this regard, the High Court adversely commented on the conduct of Prasad, a 1995-batch IAS officer. It said there was an “apparent reluctance” on his part to facilitate and effectively implement measures aimed at improving investigative standards and ensuring compliance with judicial directions.

“Such conduct, if left unaddressed, would have the effect of rendering the orders of Constitutional Courts nugatory at the hands of recalcitrant administrative officers and would set a pernicious precedent for the manner in which judicial directions concerning accountability and police reforms may be treated by the executive. This Court cannot be a silent spectator to such conduct,” the Bench said.

The High Court made the observations while dealing with a habeas corpus petition moved by a woman for custody of her minor daughter, who was allegedly enticed away by a man. After the police failed to recover her, the victim’s mother moved the High Court.

Finding that the investigating officer had failed to conduct a fair, impartial and effective investigation in the case, the Court examined whether the police was following the directions issued by it in Subhash Chandra & Others v. State of UP & Another to improve investigations in the State.

When the Court asked the ACS Prasad to explain the reasons for persistent non-compliance with the directions, it was told that the State has decided to challenge the directions issued in Subhash Chandra. The affidavit filed by the Secretary (Home) thus urged the Court to refrain from passing any further orders for implementation of the earlier directions. 

In the order passed on June 3, the High Court said that the directions issued in Subhash Chandra in May 2025 were not challenged for almost a year after pronouncement. It was only after an explanation was sought from the ACS (Home) that the decision was taken to challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court, the Court noted.

The Court said that it had deferred the matter to await further information about the proposed SLP, but even after 3 months, no order or judgment of the Supreme Court was produced by the State.

Justice Diwakar said that while the State has a right to appeal before the Supreme Court, such decision cannot be motivated by personal reasons of ACS (Home).

Considering the sequence of events in the case, the Court said that it was difficult to overlook Prasad’s conduct.

The High Court emphasised that the objective of police reforms is not to diminish the authority of the executive over police administration, but to ensure that investigations are conducted in a fair manner. 

“Any resistance to measures designed to achieve these objectives would be inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of ensuring the rule of law and strengthening public confidence in the criminal justice system."

Looking at Prasad’s conduct in the case, the High Court directed the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India to keep its findings on record and consider them while evaluating the 1995-batch IAS officer's suitability for future assignments.

[Read Live Coverage]

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued detailed guidelines to guide the assessment of children caught in custody battles between their parents, warning family courts not to subject such children to psychological evaluation unless necessary.

A Bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh stressed that such measures should be used sparingly.

The Bench held that courts must first assess the psychological condition of the parents before considering any evaluation of the child.

"Family Courts must first appoint a psychologist to assess the psychological condition of both parents, particularly the parent having present custody of the child, before deciding whether any psychological assessment of the child is required," said the Court.

The Bench further directed that if such an evaluation of children is found unnecessary or undesirable, it should not be conducted.

"No psychological assessment of the child should be conducted if the Family Court, based on the psychologist's report, finds such assessment unnecessary or undesirable," said the Court.

The ruling came in a plea challenging orders passed by the Bombay High Court directing the psychological evaluation of a minor in a custody dispute. A panel of experts had earlier been constituted on the Court's orders to evaluate the child and the parents, to facilitate restoration of contact between the father and the minor.

The top court today modified the High Court’s orders dated April 27, 2023 and December 7, 2023. The case has been remitted back to the family court for a fresh consideration in light of guidelines now issued by the Supreme Court in such matters.

In its ruling, the top court has held that where evaluation of the child is required, it must be undertaken by an independent child psychologist, in consultation with any psychologist already treating the child, and with minimal interaction so as not to disturb the child’s mental condition.

The Court also emphasised that courts must remain mindful that a child’s psychological needs evolve with age.

"Family Courts must remain conscious that a child's psychological needs change with age and may require periodic review and assessment," said the Court.

The Court also directed family courts to examine concerns such as parental alienation and the risk of false memory creation, while ensuring that the child is not exposed to influences that may foster such tendencies.

Highlighting its role as parens patriae, the Court noted that custody and visitation disputes involving children are inherently dynamic and constitute a continuing cause of action. It clarified that parents are at liberty to seek modification of custody or visitation arrangements as circumstances change over time.

It also directed parties to inform family courts about any related pending proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

"Parties must apprise the family court of the status of proceedings pending under the POCSO Act against the respondent, as those proceedings may significantly affect decisions concerning visitation and custody rights," directed the Court.

The Court’s reasoning drew on expert material, including a report by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) and the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

These reports had highlighted the complex psychological challenges faced by children caught in parental disputes. These include strained child-parent relationships, parental conflict, mental health concerns, maladjustment, school-related issues, and instances of malicious conduct by parents.

"Such studies reflect both the mental health of children involved in parental disputes and the psychological condition of the disputing parents, providing an important backdrop for judicial decision-making," observed the Court.

[Read Live Coverage]

Corporate clients are increasingly demanding clear, actionable advice from external lawyers, with little tolerance for ambiguity, said Deputy General Counsel at Vedanta Limited Preet Sethi at a panel discussion during London International Disputes Week 2026.

Sethi was responding to a question on what she expects from external counsel today that she was not asking for five years ago, at a session organised by Stewarts and Brick Court Chambers under the theme General Counsel – or Global Counsel.

She highlighted a growing frustration among in-house teams with overly cautious legal advice from external counsel.

“What I particularly am asking from external counsel is clear-cut advice. With yes or no answers and black and white answers. I do not like when external counsel caveat everything with, 'it may happen and it may not happen' and try to be all evasive without actually giving you a clear decision on the query which has been asked,” she said.

She added that while legal complexity is unavoidable, external lawyers must still provide direction.

“We will deal with the grey areas but external counsels have to be very precise and clear. Without disclaimer."

The panel - moderated by Sherina Petit, Head of International Arbitration and India Practice at Stewarts and Chintan Chandrachud of Brick Court Chambers - brought together in-house leaders and practitioners to examine how the role of general counsel and their interaction with external lawyers is shifting in a cross-border business environment. The speakers included Neena Gupta, Arnaz Kotwal, Osman Aboubakr and Pallavi Saluja.

External counsel, typically law firms or independent advocates engaged by companies for specialised legal advice or dispute representation, have traditionally been central to handling complex legal matters.

However, as the discussion highlighted, their role is increasingly being redefined by more empowered in-house teams, greater access to information and rising expectations around speed, clarity and commercial relevance.

Neena Gupta, CEO of Miiro Hotels and former Group General Counsel at InterGlobe Enterprises, framed the changing expectations in terms of speed and efficiency. She particularly took note of the changes in a landscape increasingly shaped by technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI). She advised,

“Reduce your fees and come to the decision faster than you do. I think that would be my very strong advice.”

She suggested that external lawyers should prioritise early directional advice over lengthy analysis, noting that clients increasingly expect speed alongside substance.

"Use whatever tools that are available to come to a first, very helpful advice, before a client will ask for a detailed analysis once they get a the direction. So a direction first and analysis later," said Gupta.

Arnaz Kotwal, General Counsel at VFS Global, pointed to predictability and transparency, particularly around costs and risk, as critical to maintaining client confidence.

“My specific thing would be no surprises. Absolutely none with regard to the costs. Absolutely none with regard to when you're giving the advice if there is something which is a risk I would need it to be very clearly stated out...no ambiguousness in the memo,” she said.

She stressed that what companies ultimately seek goes beyond transactional legal advice.

“I think for judgment and trust is what I would want from my external counsel. And a partnership as opposed to just the legal advice,” she said.

Osman Aboubakr, co-founder of Argentum Law, framed the issue more broadly in terms of client needs in a post-AI environment.

“From the perspective of what clients want from lawyers that are providing me advice...is lawyers to help them make better decisions They want speed as you said before commerciality coordination and...when things get difficult they want lawyers who will stay in the trenches with them throughout the process not just send the advice and then disappear,” he observed.

He further cautioned that focusing solely on legal success can undermine trust.

“Lawyers lose credibility when they confuse legal success with business success. You know lawyers shouldn't just answer legal questions. They just have to provide that additional layer.”

A significant portion of the discussion centred on whether and how external counsel should use AI. Petit asked panellists if they now expect outside lawyers to adopt AI tools and how that would impact the quality of advice.

Gupta and Aboubakr both acknowledged AI’s role in improving efficiency, with Gupta suggesting that clients themselves are already using such tools.

"Please assume that your the client would have already put the query in the AI and got the answer. So (they are) obviously looking for something more nuanced," she observed.

Kotwal supported the use of AI but stressed the need for human oversight, citing mixed experiences.

"I absolutely think that law firms should be using AI. But I think that the advice would need to be re-looked at before it's sent out... I've had some misses and hits with regard to AI...I think if it is used responsibly it would be hugely enhancing and cost saving," she said.

Sethi, however, took a more sceptical view, drawing a distinction between internal use of AI and reliance on it by external counsel.

"I am paying for a human mind. I should get the human mind to think and give me the answer...When you are approaching an expert external counsel, after I have my 70 member team...few of the best lawyers and legal minds have gone through the query. Then I am asking that particular individual or lawyer or law firm to answer. And if I see that it has been made through AI, I wouldn’t be very happy about it,” she said.

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to list tomorrow the petition filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan against the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice Atul Chandurkar by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi who urged the Court to list the matter on Friday and stay the declaration of results.

However, the Court questioned the maintainability of the plea.

"Is this maintainable," Justice Mishra asked.

Senior Advocate DS Naidu appeared for the ECI and said that petition copy has not been served on the poll body.

The Court eventually ordered listing of the matter on Friday subject to clearing of defects.

The polling for the seat is slated for June 18.

Natarajan's candidature was rejected by returning officer and Madhya Pradesh assembly principal secretary Arvind Sharma on June 9.

This was after objections were raised by BJP leaders including Rajya Sabha candidate Mahesh Kewat and party state general secretary Rahul Kothari. The BJP alleged that Natarajan, in her election affidavit, had failed to disclose details of a case pending before a court in Hyderabad.

According to the returning officer's order, Natarajan had responded to a notice issued by a Hyderabad court in October 2025 but did not mention the matter in Form 26 submitted with her nomination papers. The returning officer held that the affidavit was incomplete and rejected her candidature on that basis.

Congress leaders have maintained that the rejection is legally unsustainable, arguing that no criminal case exists against Natarajan since no court has yet taken cognisance of the private complaint filed against her, and that a pre-cognisance notice does not constitute a pending criminal case requiring mandatory disclosure.

On the other hand, BJP argued before the returning officer that Supreme Court guidelines on mandatory disclosure require all candidates to declare pending criminal cases in their nomination affidavits and that Natarajan's non-disclosure violated those guidelines.

The rejection effectively eliminates Congress from the contest for one of the three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh up for polling on June 18. Natarajan, a former Lok Sabha MP from Mandsaur, currently serves as AICC in-charge of Telangana.