Browsing: Top News

Abstract
From Article 14’s principle of equal treatment, emerged a doctrine named ‘manifest arbitrariness’ crafted by courts to overturn unchecked government actions and sweeping laws.
This article examines the concept of ‘manifest arbitrariness’ as applied by the Supreme Court of India under Article 14 of the Constitution. Though the term is absent from the Constitution, judicial decisions have used it to invalidate legislation and executive action that appear capricious, disproportionate, or lacking a determinative principle. Starting with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu in 1974, moving through Shayara Bano v. Union of India in 2017, then Joseph Shine v. Union of India in 2018, followed by the Association for Democratic Reforms case on electoral bonds in 2024, and recent arbitration rulings in 2025, this doctrine evolves from philosophical principle to stylistic weapon. Far from a formal test, manifest arbitrariness operates as an interpretive style where tone and principle carry more force than rigid logic. Its expressive weight invokes deeper constitutional values when laws lack determinative clarity. While enabling vital oversight, predictability concerns persist; hybrid standards could ensure clearer application. From constitutional silence to modern judgments’ rhetorical core, it reveals Article 14’s evolving grammar.

Introduction – The Constitutional Framework of Right to Education The right to education stands as one of the most transformative…

Learn about pasara licence documents required for PSARA registration in India. Step-by-step guide with expert PSARA services by Agile Regulatory.

Introduction In democratic societies, VVIPs—including heads of government, senior ministers, chief ministers, political party leaders, and other high-profile constitutional functionaries—wield…

Abstract This particular research tries to analyze the relationship between two beautiful, diverse and dynamic subjects, Law and Music. Law…

This is an article about FIR. The topics like importance of FIR, it’s procedure, How to file FIR are covered in this article.

VVIP security is one of the most demanding and scrutinized functions of modern policing. It involves protection under intense public…

This article critically examines Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), which was introduced as a pandemic-era measure to temporarily suspend the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Sections 7, 9 and 10. While Parliament’s intention was to provide relief to businesses facing financial hardship during COVID-19, the broad wording of the provision, particularly the phrase “shall ever be filed”, resulted in a permanent and retrospective prohibition on creditors applications for default that occurred during the specified stay period. The article argues that such a blanket prohibition, without any leeway for judicial discretion or revival of claims, creates procedural and constitutional anomalies. It disproportionately restricts the rights of creditors, undermines the legislative balance envisaged by Sections 7 and 9 and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by encouraging arbitrariness and denying access to justice. Through a doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis of the main decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), this artilce highlights the inconsistencies of interpretation and practical challenges in determining the date of default and the applicability of Section 10A. In addition, it draws on comparative perspectives from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Singapore, which have implemented more balanced insolvency responses to the pandemic. In conclusion, the article proposes legislative reform, including the insertion of a revitalization mechanism or sunset clause, and recommends a judicial review of the constitutional validity of section 10A in order to restore fairness and consistency in the insolvency framework.

Introduction The case of Fair Food Overseas Pvt Ltd v. KRBL Limited, decided by the High Court of Delhi, represents…

This case revolves around a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where the petitioner sought the cancellation or removal of the respondent’s trademark ‘GMW’ in Class 11, arguing it was deceptively similar to their own ‘GM’ marks used since 1999 in the electrical goods sector. The court, presiding over an ex-parte proceeding due to the respondent’s non-appearance, emphasized the overriding principle that prior adoption and continuous use, backed by substantial goodwill evidenced through sales and registrations, prevail over later registrations that could lead to confusion or passing off.