Browsing: Top News

Political representation and participation are fundamental to democracy, yet women remain vastly underrepresented in India’s political institutions. Despite constitutional guarantees…

In recent times, the disputes scaling between emerging brands like Prime and Mas+[i] to the well-established brands such as Burger…

The key differences between Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, stem from their distinct objectives, scope,…

CHILD MARRIAGE PROHIBITION ACT WHY IT STILL FAILS

This project explores the concept of disgorgement and its utilisation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”). The research and analysis done through this research project reveals that SEBI’s rationale for employing disgorgement is based on its ‘equitable’ and ‘remedial’ authority, aiming to recover ill-gotten gains from wrongdoers and restore the situation to its original state. However, this differs from disgorgement practices elsewhere, which aim to strip wrongdoers of their gains without necessarily restoring the status quo.

The author observes that SEBI’s disgorgement orders do not consistently align with its stated justification, as none of the orders of the SEBI, till now, actually return the wrongdoer to their original position. Moreover, disgorgement decisions are made at the discretion of whole-time members (“WTMs”), who hold executive authority within the government. This exercise of public power without clear legislative or judicial boundaries raises significant concerns regarding regulatory governance.

Complicating matters further is the destination of disgorgement proceeds, which are directed to the Investor Protection and Education Fund controlled by the SEBI, unlike penalties that contribute to the Consolidated Fund of India. The findings suggest that SEBI needs to reassess how it conceptualises disgorgement, its underlying objectives, and the procedures governing its application. This analysis of disgorgement has implications beyond India and is pertinent to similar discussions in other jurisdictions, including the United States.

New Year’s Eve Gig Worker Logouts Across Indian Cities On New Year’s Eve, delivery partners across several Indian cities announced…

Abstract The deduction framework under the Income-tax Act, 1961 is designed to incentivize savings, investments, and legitimate business expenditure. However,…

Introduction The Repealing and Amending Act, 2025 has fundamentally transformed how families in India handle wills and inheritance. Two critical…

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that convictions under the POCSO Act need not fail for want of medical evidence if ocular testimony is credible and consistent. In Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), the Court upheld a conviction for aggravated sexual assault on a four-year-old child, relying on consistent parental testimony and trauma-induced behaviour, despite the absence of external injuries. The ruling underscores that medical evidence is corroborative, not substantive, and that courts must adopt a sensitive, victim-centric approach where child victims may be unable to fully articulate their trauma. This jurisprudence ensures that justice is not defeated by technical gaps in forensic proof.

Civil law and criminal law are the two main branches of law with different purposes, parties, and consequences. Civil law…