The Supreme Court reaffirmed that State Bar Councils must strictly comply with the ₹750 cap on enrollment fees for advocates, warning that overcharging young lawyers violates statutory provisions under the Advocates Act and undermines access to the legal profession.

Summary Case:   Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kattimani Chaniappa Jamappanna & Ors. Citation:  1968 AIR 929; 1968 SCR (2) 805 Date of Judgment:  19 January 1968 Bench:  Hon'ble Justice M. Hidayatullah; Hon'ble Justice S.M. Sikri; Hon'ble Justice K.S. Hegde Advocates:  S. S. Javali and M. Veerappa for the appellant; R. Gopalakrishnan for respondent no.1 Statutory Provisions / Instruments:  Representation of the People Act, 1951 (s.116-A); Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950

In a significant move likely to reshape the handling of cheque bounce cases across India, the Supreme Court has relaxed the penalty...

A Strong Message from the Apex Court The Supreme Court of India has once again underscored the protective intent of the Maintenance and...

The Supreme Court of India has stayed the Bombay High Court's acquittal of all 12 accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case, a significant move in Indian criminal law. While the acquitted remain free, the SC explicitly stated the High Court's judgment "shall not be treated as a precedent." This intervention, rooted in the doctrine of stare decisis, aims to prevent detrimental precedent and uphold judicial discipline.

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India declared that corporate entities can be considered "victims" under criminal law, expanding their rights in criminal proceedings. This decision, stemming from an Asian Paints Ltd. appeal, broadens the definition of "victim" in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC to include juristic entities suffering loss or injury (financial or reputational) from criminal acts.

Supreme Court urges urgent crypto laws in India, highlighting risks of misuse amid regulatory gaps and calls for clear digital asset rules.