A bizarre, unprecedented and a bit funny situation has unfolded at the Bombay High Court.

Over 10 judges have recused from hearing an FIR quashing plea filed by HDFC Bank CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan. What’s going on? Let’s unpack. ⬇️ The case stems from a complaint by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which owns Mumbai’s iconic Lilavati Hospital.

They’ve accused Jagdishan of accepting a ₹2.05 crore bribe to help a private group retain control of the Trust.

In a powerful judgment, the Orissa High Court has slammed the State for carrying out an illegal demolition in clear defiance of judicial orders. ₹10 lakhs compensation awarded, ₹2 lakhs to be recovered from the Tahasildar's salary. Here's what happened. 🧵 The case involved a community centre (goshtigruha) built decades ago on land classified as 'gochar' (grazing land). The building stood since 1985, was rebuilt with MLA funds post-2016, and actively used for public welfare.

On May 23, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment not just for one man, but for how police in UP use the Gangsters Act.

Here’s what happened, and its quite interesting 👇 The case involved Vinod Bihari Lal, Director at SHUATS University, who was booked under the UP Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

The charges were of alleged financial fraud, forgery, running an unrecognized school.

The Supreme Court recently called a Bombay High Court judgment “beautifully written, one of the best.” That’s some serious praise. Naturally, I had to read it. What made it so good? Lets see - 🧵 The case was an old family property fight. Like, really old, going back to the 1970s. One side said the way assets were divided back then was unfair. The other side said that we already acted on it, it’s done, let it go.

Have you ever done something wrong, which was seen by a small child, and you thought "is dedh feet pe kaun believe karega?".

Welll, then this thread is for you.

Child Witnesses in Criminal Trials – Principles You Should Know - A thread 🧵 Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act says anyone can testify unless they’re unable to understand questions or give rational answers. So yes, kids can be witnesses. Age is no bar, but mental capacity is key.

Let’s dissect a constitutional conundrum! On May 13, 2025, President Murmu invoked Article 143(1), posing 14 questions to the Supreme Court about its power to set timelines for Governors on Bills (Art 200). This is a goldmine for your exams so let’s dive in - Lets start with a basic Context: In State of Tamil Nadu v Governor (Apr 2025), the SC set a “reasonable time” for Governors to act on Bills under Article 200, and a 3-month deadline for the President under Article 201. This stemmed from delays in states like Tamil Nadu.

This is surreal and a major constitutional moment today. The Supreme Court unambiguously struck down the Tamil Nadu Governor’s act of withholding assent and reserving ten re-enacted bills for the President. The Court held this to be illegal, erroneous, and non-est in law. For years, the Tamil Nadu Governor sat on state bills—some dating back to 2020—without action. When the State Assembly re-enacted these laws, the Governor abruptly sent them to the President post the Punjab Governor verdict. The Court called this what it was: mala fide.

Justice Yashwant Verma has recently been under public scrutiny. Since i am also a part of the public, I chose my legal way and I examined last 106 judgments authored by him. I used the tool from @Lawlens_IN to create the database and here is what i found - First thing first, these are case in which the authored the judgement. In last few months, he has been part of benches that have pronounced orders in almost 350 cases.

There was no point taking judgements not authored by him so i excluded them.

So lets proceed.

I have seen a lot many students don't know most of the landmark & significant judgements of CPC. Hence i am posting a thread covering key decisions in Civil Procedure Code (CPC) that every law student should read - 1. Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin (1980)

A person cannot be arrested for mere inability to pay a debt. Arrest can only be made if there is willful refusal despite having the means. Protects debtors from unjust imprisonment.

When arguing before the High Court, we often cite SC judgments to support our arguments, only to discover that opposing counsel has cited a conflicting SC judgment.

What should the High Court do in this situation?

The Supreme Court itself has recently addressed this question - When faced with two seemingly inconsistent Supreme Court decisions, a High Court must not arbitrarily select one. Instead, it must reconcile the differences by carefully examining the facts and legal reasoning behind each judgment.

Everybody knows that the largest Supeme Court bench was of 13 Judges.

But is it the largest bench in a case in any Indian Court ?

Nope. The largest was a 28 Judge Bench.

This also is a case in which UP Assembly ordered arrest of two Allahabad HC judges.

All coz of one man - In 1964, a simple political pamphlet sparked a major constitutional showdown in India’s history. Keshav Singh, a political activist from Gorakhpur linked to the Socialist Party, was at the center, known for his bold criticism of the ruling Congress government.

Most of the students think natural law is just reading morality in Law, but that is just scratch on the surface.

I'll explain natural law referring a few jurists and i hope I can explain it more than a scratch (Like a dent or something) -

Lets Go Law isn’t just about rules, but about deep thoughts, moral dilemmas, and probably a lot of overcomplicated essays.

The Natural Law School also called the Philosophical school, is all about it.

When I was in Law School, the most difficult jurist to comprehend was HLA Hart.

When i started teaching, i realized he isn't that complicated.

Here is a simple explanation of Hart's Jurisprudence - Who was H.L.A. Hart?

H.L.A. Hart (1907–1992) was a legal philosopher and professor at Oxford. His 1961 book The Concept of Law reshaped analytical jurisprudence. His main contribution? Law is not just orders backed by threats—it’s a system of rules.

Let's break it down. 🏛️

Single handedly one of the most nightmarish subject in law for students as well as teachers is... CPC.

I'll explain a simple step-by-step guide to filing a civil suit in India referring the CPC

From plaint to judgment, let’s break it down in simple terms. 👇🏼 Step 1: Filing of Plaint 📜
This is your “I’m taking you to court” document.
It must contain:
✅ The facts
✅ The claims
✅ Why the court should help

Mess it up, and the court might reject it before it even starts!
[🔗 Order VII, Rule 1-11 CPC]

Bollywood courtroom dramas are nothing like real life. No judge says “Objection Overruled” with swag. No lawyer gets dramatic monologues. But they’re still fun to watch.

Here are 10 legal movies that are worth your time. 🧵👇 1 - Pink (2016)
If you still think "No means No" needs further explanation, this movie is for you. Amitabh Bachchan schools everyone on consent, Section 375, and why morality lectures belong in the trash.

These legal titans didn’t just argue in courtrooms—they shaped laws, defended justice, and left an indelible mark on India’s legal landscape.

Probably the greatest lawyers India ever witnessed👇
🧵 1. Nani Palkhivala (1920-2002)

A tax law genius, his annual budget lectures in Bombay were so popular that people lined up at dawn for seats.

His arguments in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) developed the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring Parliament cannot destroy fundamental rights.

The main convict of the RG Kar Case has been sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court has opined that the case fails to fall in the Category of ‘Rarest of Rare’.

What exactly is Rarest of Rare? Lets see how Judges decide if someone is to be sentenced to death or not 🧵👇- 👉Sentencing is a vital power of a Judge. In India, Only the Sessions Court, High Court and Supreme Court Judges have power to impose death sentence.

👉A Death Sentence imposed by the Sessions Court needs confirmation from High Court (Section 366 and 368 CrPC).

👉A person sentenced to Death from both Sessions Court and High Court, can appeal to Supreme Court but if the High Court grants leave to appeal in Article 134(1)(c) or the Supreme Court grant special leave under Art.136(1) of Constitution.

Netflix has created a TV series on the Book 'Black Warrant' by Tihar Jailer Sunil Gupta & now the case of Ranga & Billa has again received the mainstream attention.

The murder of two children, and its landmark judgement delivered by then Chief Justice YV Chandrachud - A🧵👇🏻 August 26, 1978 - Geeta (16) a 2nd-year student at Jesus and Mary College & Sanjay (14) a schoolboy, children of Navy officer Captain MM Chopra. Both were headed to AIR’s Yuva Vani program at 8 PM. Their father planned to pick them up afterward. It was a monsoon evening, and the siblings hitched a ride to Gole Dak Khana from Dr. MS Nanda.

Let’s break down Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), where the Supreme Court answered a nuanced question:
“When does consent for sexual intercourse, given on a promise of marriage, get invalidated by law?” A story of love, promises, and legal tests follows. 🧵👇 The facts:
The prosecutrix (19) & the accused, Uday (20), were in love.

Uday frequently visited her home and promised to marry her.

They had a consensual sexual relationship for months.
She became pregnant.

Uday eventually backed out, citing caste differences and family opposition.

Feeling deceived, she filed a rape complaint.

Let's dive deep into Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), where the Supreme Court became the ultimate law professor and gave us a Masterclass on maintenance law. This case isn’t just about one family feud; it’s about reforming the chaos of overlapping laws on maintenance. 🧵👇 The Backstory:

Neha leaves the matrimonial home in 2013 with her son and files for interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Family Court awards ₹15,000/month for Neha and ₹5,000 (later ₹10,000) for the son.

Rajnesh argues he’s broke and challenges the order.

The Supreme Court in Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) issued comprehensive guidelines to ensure fair trials, effective legal aid, and the proper role of public prosecutors.

Everything you need to know from this judgement - Background

The appellant, Ashok, was accused of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl on May 27, 2009, in Uttar Pradesh. He was convicted by the trial court under Sections 376 (rape), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The trial court sentenced him to death and The Hon'ble High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission.