WELCOME TO AASHAYEIN LAW EDUCATION CENTER

18 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Central Inland Water Transport Corporation vs Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986):Understand Unfair Contracts the Simple Way

Unconscionable contracts, public policy, and the court's power under Section 23 ICA Freedom of contract is a foundational principle of the law of contracts. Parties are free to make their own bargains. But that freedom rests on an assumption that both parties enter the contract on something approaching equal footing. When one party is vastly more powerful than the other, and when that power is used to impose terms that no reasonable person in a position of genuine choice would....

Read More
15 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Shajiya Parveen and another v. State of U.P & ors:Important Judgment Explained

No legal protection for live-in relationship if male partner is below 21 years Live-in relationships occupy a legally complex space in India. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have over the years recognised that a live-in relationship that resembles a marriage in its character and stability may attract certain legal protections, particularly under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, this recognition is not unconditional. A recent ruling has drawn a firm line: a live-in relationship....

Read More
14 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma vs K. Devi (1996):Facts, Issues & Judgment Explained

HUF coparcenary rights, Mitakshara vs Dayabhaga, and the law of succession Few areas of Hindu personal law are as foundational, as frequently examined, and as often confused as the law governing the Hindu Undivided Family and coparcenary rights. The Supreme Court's decision in Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma vs K. Devi (1996) is a landmark ruling that brings together the principles of HUF coparcenary, the distinction between the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools of Hindu law, and the framework of succession....

Read More
13 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Girjia Kumari & others vs State (NCT of Delhi):Understanding the Legal Impact

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is one of India's most important social justice legislations. It exists to protect the most vulnerable members of society from discrimination, humiliation, and violence rooted in caste. But like every law, it has specific conditions that must be satisfied before its provisions are attracted. A recent ruling has clarified one such condition with considerable precision: alleged casteist abuse or intentional insult directed at a member of a Scheduled Caste....

Read More
12 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electric Co. (1994):Landmark Judgment on Enforcement of Foreign Awards

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral awards and the public policy exception under the New York Convention When a foreign arbitral tribunal delivers an award against an Indian party, can that party resist enforcement in India by invoking public policy? And if so, how wide is the public policy exception? These are the questions at the heart of Renusagar Power Co. vs General Electric Co. (1994), a Supreme Court judgment that remains the foundational Indian authority on the enforcement of foreign arbitral....

Read More
11 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Ravi Das Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2026: Latest Verdict Every Judiciary Aspirant Must Read

Merely accompanying a minor who left voluntarily is not kidnapping: understanding Section 137 BNS and its limits. When a minor leaves home on their own and someone simply walks alongside them, is that person guilty of kidnapping? The answer, as this ruling makes clear, is no. Merely accompanying a minor who left voluntarily does not constitute the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, now Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.....

Read More
09 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Saheli v. Commissioner of Police Delhi (1990):Case Summary, Facts & Judgement

Vicarious liability of State for police torture and the public law remedy of compensation When a police officer, acting in the name of the State, causes the death of a child through brutal and unlawful force, can the State simply wash its hands of responsibility? Can a grieving mother be told that her only remedy lies in a lengthy civil suit for damages in a tort court? The Supreme Court answered these questions with moral force and legal precision in....

Read More
08 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

State of MP V. Ramesh C Sharma (2005):A Landmark Judgement Every Judiciary Aspirant Must Understand

Can one witness decide the entire case? From hostile witnesses to sole testimony — uncover the hidden rules of evidence How many witnesses does it take to convict a person of a crime? Can a court convict an accused on the testimony of a single witness who stands alone, without corroboration from any other source? And what happens when a witness the prosecution has called turns around in the witness box and contradicts everything they said in their earlier statement?....

Read More
07 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Ishita Bhardwaj v. State of Rajasthan,2026 Sending abortion pills through courier does not constitute an offence

Can a person be prosecuted for sending abortion pills through a courier service to someone who needs them? This question sits at the crossroads of criminal law, medical law, and constitutional rights. A recent ruling has delivered a significant answer: sending abortion pills through a courier does not by itself constitute a criminal offence. The judgment carefully examines the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the constitutional right to privacy and reproductive autonomy....

Read More
06 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

N. Kamalam v. Ayyasamy (2001): The Judgement That Redefined Legal Interpretation

Limitation in suits for possession, adverse possession, and the starting point under Article 65 Property disputes in India frequently turn on one deceptively simple question: when did the clock start ticking? In suits for possession of immovable property, the law of limitation is every bit as important as the law of title. N. Kamalam vs Ayyasamy (2001) is a landmark Supreme Court judgment that answers the foundational questions surrounding limitation in suits for possession, the doctrine of adverse possession, and....

Read More