- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih Introduction The case was a public interest litigation (PIL) filed before the Supreme Court of India, seeking a statutory prohibition on social media usage by children below 13 years of age. The petition was based on concerns regarding the severe mental, psychological, and physical impact of social media on young users. The petitioner also sought mandatory parental controls for children aged 13-18 and stricter age verification mechanisms. However, the Supreme Court refused....
Read MoreIntroduction The case revolves around the question of whether a Muslim woman, whose marriage has been dissolved under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, is entitled to permanent alimony and whether such alimony can be modified upon her remarriage. The Supreme Court, recognizing the significance of the issue, has appointed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave as amicus curiae to assist in the legal deliberation. Facts of the Case A Muslim woman obtained a divorce decree....
Read MoreThe Bench Comprising of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan Introduction: The Supreme Court, examined the scope of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly regarding the rate of interest in commercial transactions. The Court ruled that in the absence of an agreement between the parties, the interest rate could exceed 6% per annum, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Facts: In 1973, the appellants sold their shares to the State of Rajasthan at ₹11.50....
Read MoreBalaji Raghavan, a petitioner, approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus to stop the government from granting National Awards like the Padma Vibhushan and Padma Shri. He argued these awards violated Article 18(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits the state from conferring non-military or non-academic titles. The case involved written submissions from both sides between 1992 and 1994, but no oral arguments or interim orders were made by the Kerala High Court. The matter....
Read MoreShrimati Shantabai, the petitioner, was granted the right to cut and use wood from certain forests within her husband’s Zamindari through an unregistered document. However, with the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, all proprietary rights over such lands were transferred to the State. Despite this, she obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner under the Act to continue working in the forest and began cutting trees. Subsequently, the Divisional Forest Officer....
Read MoreThe Bench Comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan Introduction: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the absence of a complainant on a date fixed by the court should necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused under Section 256 of the CrPC and its equivalent in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court examined the applicability of acquittal provisions when the complainant fails to appear, and whether such a failure should automatically lead to an acquittal. Facts:....
Read MoreNaresh Shridhar Mirajkar, a journalist at Blitz, wrote an article alleging that businessman Krishnaraj M.D. Thackersey manipulated the import of silk yarn for personal gain, using fabricated documents and black market dealings. Thackersey filed a defamation suit against the magazine. During the trial, defense witness Bhaichand G. Goda supported Blitz’s claims but requested the court to prohibit the publication of his statements, fearing business losses. The court accepted his request and orally barred Blitz from reporting his testimony. When Blitz....
Read MoreThe Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan Introduction: The Supreme Court held that Article 311(1) of the Indian Constitution does not mandate that only the appointing authority can initiate disciplinary proceedings against a government servant. The Court clarified that while the appointing authority must approve dismissal, the initiation of disciplinary action can be done by any superior authority unless explicitly restricted by relevant service rules. The ruling overturned a High Court decision that had quashed the respondent’s dismissal based....
Read MoreA Bench Comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction The Supreme Court has ruled that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted before registering an FIR in cases involving speech, writing, or artistic expression if the alleged offence carries a punishment between three to seven years. This decision aims to prevent frivolous and unjustified FIRs that could infringe upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Court referred to Section 173(3)....
Read MoreIn this case, the defendants, who were newspaper publishers, published an article about a fictional character named Artemus Jones who was portrayed as having an affair. However, coincidentally, there was a real person named Artemus Jones who felt that the article defamed him and filed a defamation lawsuit. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the claimant, Artemus Jones. The defendants appealed, arguing that they had no intention of referring to the real Artemus Jones, as they were unaware....
Read More
