Can FIR be registered against a judge?

Supreme Court on Summary Suits – Strict Compliance with Order XXXVII CPC In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India (Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah & SVN Bhatti) has clarified that a defendant in a summary suit cannot file a reply or defense without first obtaining the explicit leave of the Court under Order XXXVII CPC. This decision overturns a Bombay High Court ruling that had permitted defendants to reply to a summons for judgment without such leave. The Apex Court reaffirmed that leave to defend is a mandatory precondition, ensuring that the summary procedure remains swift and efficient. Any defense filed without the Court’s permission is procedurally invalid. However, the Bench clarified that its observations will not prejudice the pending matter or foreclose the defendant’s legal options. Key Takeaway: Strict adherence to procedural requirements under Order 37 is essential — the leave to defend is not a mere formality but a safeguard of judicial discipline. #SupremeCourt #Order37 #CPC #SummarySuit #LegalUpdate #IndianJudiciary #CaseLaw #Advocates #Litigation #CommercialDisputes #CivilProcedure #LawStudents #LegalProfession #Judgment

⚖️ Why Cases Are Delayed in Lower Courts (India) 📊 Source: National Judicial Data Grid (as of 29 Sept 2025) --- 🚨 Top Reasons for Delay: Rank Cause of Delay Number of Cases 💬 Remark 🥇 1 Counsel not available 62,00,1072 Lawyers’ absence stalls justice the most. 🥈 2 Accused absconding 35,14,7303 Many accused remain untraceable for years. 🥉 3 Missing witnesses 26,67,6834 Crucial witnesses fail to appear in court. 4️⃣ Stayed by lower courts 22,60,6425 Internal court stays add to the backlog. 5️⃣ Awaiting documents 14,16,8966 Delay in records & evidence submission. 6️⃣ Parties not interested 7,81,0077 Cases abandoned or neglected by litigants. 7️⃣ Stayed by Supreme Court 9,128 Few but significant cases stalled at apex level. 8️⃣ Stayed by High Court 5,717 Minor portion, yet contributes to pendency. --- 🧾 Quick Insights 🔹 Total cases delayed: Over 1.68 crore+ cases! 🔹 Nearly 37% of all delays are due to lawyers not being available. 🔹 Systemic issues like absconding accused and missing witnesses form another one-third of total delays. 🔹 Court stays (all levels combined) account for nearly 13% of pending matters. 💡 In Short “Justice delayed is justice denied — but often, it’s not just the system, it’s the people within it who cause the delay.” _____________________________________________ #Advocate #LawyerLife #LegalProfession #JusticeForAll #RuleOfLaw #IndianAdvocate #CourtPractice #LegalAwareness #LawAndJustice #LegalSystem #DistrictCourt #HighCourt #SupremeCourtOfIndia #LegalPractice #CaseHearing #JudicialSystem

Independent Application of Mind in Criminal Appeals – Supreme Court’s Powerful Reminder The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has emphatically reiterated that the High Courts, as the first appellate courts under Section 374(2) CrPC, bear a solemn duty to independently re-assess and re-appreciate the entire body of evidence – including medical evidence, statements of the victim, testimonies of witnesses, and the defence version. While appellate judgments need not be unnecessarily lengthy, they must unmistakably reflect a proper application of judicial mind to crucial pieces of evidence. The Court has clarified that even though the High Court does not enjoy the advantage of observing witnesses directly, it is mandated to re-examine facts and evidence with judicial objectivity to ensure that the trial court’s conviction stands the test of fairness, legality, and justice. Dr. Anthony Raju, Advocate Supreme Court, Leading Criminal Lawyer of India and Chairman of the Indian National Human Rights Protection Council, strongly endorses this judicial principle, stating: “The role of the appellate courts is not a mere formality but a constitutional safeguard against miscarriage of justice. Independent application of mind is not an option – it is an obligation. Re-assessment of facts and evidence is the bedrock of criminal jurisprudence, ensuring that no conviction survives without scrutiny and that the rights of both the victim and the accused are equally protected.” This pronouncement reinforces the doctrine that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done, particularly in criminal cases where the life and liberty of individuals are at stake. Read the full judgment here: Supreme Court Order #DrAnthonyRaju #SupremeCourtOfIndia #HighCourtAppeals #CriminalLaw #JusticeForAll #HumanRights #RuleOfLaw #FairTrial #CriminalJurisprudence #LegalAwareness #TopCriminalAdvocate #Section374CrPC #IndependentApplicationOfMind #AppellateJurisdiction #JusticeMustPrevail #humanrightscommission

Independent Application of Mind in Criminal Appeals – Supreme Court’s Powerful Reminder The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has emphatically reiterated that the High Courts, as the first appellate courts under Section 374(2) CrPC, bear a solemn duty to independently re-assess and re-appreciate the entire body of evidence – including medical evidence, statements of the victim, testimonies of witnesses, and the defence version. While appellate judgments need not be unnecessarily lengthy, they must unmistakably reflect a proper application of judicial mind to crucial pieces of evidence. The Court has clarified that even though the High Court does not enjoy the advantage of observing witnesses directly, it is mandated to re-examine facts and evidence with judicial objectivity to ensure that the trial court’s conviction stands the test of fairness, legality, and justice. Dr. Anthony Raju, Advocate Supreme Court, Leading Criminal Lawyer of India and Chairman of the Indian National Human Rights Protection Council, strongly endorses this judicial principle, stating: “The role of the appellate courts is not a mere formality but a constitutional safeguard against miscarriage of justice. Independent application of mind is not an option – it is an obligation. Re-assessment of facts and evidence is the bedrock of criminal jurisprudence, ensuring that no conviction survives without scrutiny and that the rights of both the victim and the accused are equally protected.” This pronouncement reinforces the doctrine that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done, particularly in criminal cases where the life and liberty of individuals are at stake. Read the full judgment here: Supreme Court Order #DrAnthonyRaju #SupremeCourtOfIndia #HighCourtAppeals #CriminalLaw #JusticeForAll #HumanRights #RuleOfLaw #FairTrial #CriminalJurisprudence #LegalAwareness #TopCriminalAdvocate #Section374CrPC #IndependentApplicationOfMind #AppellateJurisdiction #JusticeMustPrevail

A significant controversy had arisen as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) recently issued summons to Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for questioning regarding the legal advice they provided to their client. This move has drawn disapproval even from the Supreme Court, as it appears to directly challenge the fundamental concept of Client-Attorney Privilege. Under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, an advocate is generally prohibited from disclosing any communication, document details, or legal advice related to a client's case without the client's explicit consent, a protection that continues even after the engagement ends, except in cases of communication for an illegal purpose or knowledge of a committed crime or fraud. The key debate now is whether the ED's action constitutes a violation of this sacred privilege and, more broadly, an attack on the essential independence of the legal profession. Follow LawStreet Journal [LawStreet Journal]— India’s only independent legal channel, powered by your support, not funds — because justice needs a fearless voice. . . #lawstreetjournal #lawstreetj #SupremeCourt #ClientAttorneyPrivilege #LegalPrivilege #AdvocateRights #EDAction #JudicialIndependence #LegalEthics #RuleOfLaw #DueProcess #ProtectPrivilege #BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam #JusticeMatters #LawAndJustice #ConstitutionalValues #legalnews #India

Want to Raise Your Voice for Justice? File a PIL in 7 Steps! Public Interest Litigation (PIL) gives every citizen the power to fight for the public good — from protecting the environment to standing up for the marginalized. Here’s how you can file a PIL 1️⃣ Identify the Issue — Must affect the public at large. 2️⃣ Collect Evidence — Gather reports, news, affidavits, or documents. 3️⃣ Draft the Petition — Clearly state facts, rights violated, and relief sought. 4️⃣ Attach Affidavit & Annexures — Support your claims with proof. 5️⃣ Choose the Right Court — High Court (Art. 226) or Supreme Court (Art. 32). 6️⃣ File & Pay Nominal Fee — Submit your petition at the court registry. 7️⃣ Attend Hearings — Stay active as the case proceeds; justice takes persistence! Because justice isn’t just for some — it’s for all. #PILAwareness #CitizenForJustice #LegalRightsIndia #JusticeForEveryone #LawAndJustice #IndianLaw #RightToEquality #VoiceForChange #EmpowerTheVoiceless #PublicJustice #LegalEducation #ConstitutionOfIndia #AccessToJustice #LawMatters #SocialJusticeIndia #BeTheChange

⚖️ Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust Cannot Coexist 🏛️The Supreme Court of India has delivered crucial guidance on the fundamental distinction between two key criminal offenses, ruling that Cheating (Section 420 IPC) and Criminal Breach of Trust (Section 406 IPC) are "antithetical" and cannot be sustained on identical facts. Key Legal Distinctions: • Cheating (Sec 420): Requires dishonest intention ab initio– from the very moment of representation or promise •Criminal Breach of Trust (Sec 406): Presupposes lawful entrustment followed by subsequent dishonest misappropriation 💡Key take Away The Court's decision to quash the FIR sends a strong message against the growing misuse of criminal provisions to settle civil disputes. 🔨As emphasized in the judgment: Criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas. ⚖️This ruling serves as essential guidance for legal practitioners in ensuring precise application of criminal provisions and distinguishing between genuine criminal intent versus civil contractual failures. #SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #LegalUpdate #IPC #LawyersOfLinkedIn #IndianJurisprudence #LegalPractice

The Delhi High Court, in Pritpal Singh v. Jupinder Kaur Maker & Ors., clarified that withdrawing a suit pursuant to a compromise does not automatically create an executable decree. While compromises or settlements are binding between parties, enforcement through execution requires that the Court formally records the compromise and draws up a consent decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. The bench emphasized that interim recognition of a compromise as a decree, as permitted in Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd., operates only temporarily to prevent loss of rights and cannot replace the mandatory formalities. In the present case, the suit was withdrawn, but no consent decree was recorded, and the terms of the compromise were not considered or directed to be executed. As a result, the execution petition was dismissed as non-maintainable. This ruling reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in civil matters, highlighting that execution cannot be pursued absent a formal decree, even if the parties have reached a settlement. It ensures fairness, judicial oversight, and prevents premature enforcement of settlements. ⚖️🏛️ #delhihighcourt #cpc #orderxxiii #consentdecree #executionofdecree #legalupdate #lawinindia #civilprocedurecode #writpetition #judicialprecedent #legalclarity #settlement #courtorder #lawstudents #judgment #legalawareness #compromise #executionpetition #civilcase #lawandjustice ⚖️📚

The Supreme Court recently came down heavily on the manner in which bail was granted to a couple accused of duping a private company of over ₹6 crore. The Court quashed bail granted to a couple accused of duping a company and directed judicial training for trial judges and an inquiry against the Investigating Officer. Read the Judgment: https://lnkd.in/dZVsKTn6 The complainant was represented by Senior Advocate Jitendra Sethi, along with advocates Keshav Sethi, Bharat Kashyap and Anmol Anand. The State were represented by Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay and Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi along with advocates Shubham P., Subh Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Digvijay Dam, BK Satija, Santosh Kumar, Aaditya Dixit and Abhinav Mishra. The private respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam along with advocates Chayan Sarkar, Arshnit Sandhu, Karan Bindra and Rajesh Sharma. (KIAA,LLP) #SupremeCourtofIndia #judgestraining #Cheatingcase #Legalnews #Legalupdate

🏛️ Supreme Court Considers Right to Lawyer’s Presence During Police Interrogation In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has issued notice on a writ petition seeking directions to allow an individual’s lawyer to be present during police interrogation. The petition highlights a crucial question of constitutional protection, transparency, and fair investigation — whether the right to legal counsel under Article 22(1) . Currently, the law allows a person in custody to “meet” their lawyer during interrogation, but not necessarily throughout the process. The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal also permitted limited legal presence — visible but not interfering. However, this new plea seeks to make the lawyer’s presence a guaranteed procedural safeguard, preventing potential coercion, abuse, or forced confessions. If accepted, it could redefine interrogation rights in India, balancing the needs of investigation with the protection of individual liberty. 🔹 Key Legal References: Article 22(1), Constitution of India D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise 🧾 The Supreme Court’s notice signals a willingness to revisit the boundaries between police powers and citizens’ rights — a welcome step toward strengthening the rule of law. #SupremeCourt #LawNews #CriminalLaw #HumanRights #AccessToJustice #LegalAwareness #PoliceReforms #RuleOfLaw #DueProcess # law # lawyer #court#advocate #judgements