Sahayata & Sahayata

  📌 Case Title Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya Criminal Appeal No. 3738 of 2023 Decision Date: 27 January 2026 🔍 Background of the Case The case arose from a missing person complaint that later led to the discovery of a dead body buried in a graveyard. The prosecution alleged kidnapping, murder, and destruction of evidence based on: “Last seen together” theory Recovery of body and rope Alleged ransom calls Seizure of belongings of the deceased Confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC The Trial Court acquitted the accused, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete. However, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused for murder (Section 302 IPC) and causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC). ⚖️ Issues Before the Supreme Court Whether the High Court was justified in reversing a well-reasoned acquittal Whether conviction could be sustained on uncorroborated confessional statements Whether the prosecution prove...

1. Purpose & Legal Basis Issued under the UGC Act, 1956 , replacing the 2012 Equity Regulations . Aligns with NEP 2020 , which treats equity and inclusion as foundational to higher education. Aims to eradicate discrimination and promote full equity across all Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in India UGC-Promotion-of-Equity-in-HEIs… 2. Scope of Application Applicable to all HEIs in India (universities, colleges, deemed universities). Covers students, faculty, staff, and management . Applies to formal, ODL, and online modes of education UGC-Promotion-of-Equity-in-HEIs… 3. Grounds of Prohibited Discrimination Discrimination is prohibited only on the basis of: Religion Race Caste (SC/ST/OBC) Gender (including third gender) Place of birth Disability Includes both direct and indirect discrimination impairing equality or human dignity UGC-Promotion-of-Equity-in-HEIs… 4. Duties of Higher Education Institutions Mandatory duty to: Eliminate discrimination Promote equity and inclu...

  The Hon'ble Delhi High Court draws a firm line between sexual assault and failed romantic relationships Introduction In a significant and thought-provoking judgment, the Delhi High Court has cautioned against the misuse of rape laws to criminalise consensual relationships that later turn sour. The Court emphasized that criminal law, especially provisions relating to rape and atrocities under the SC/ST Act, cannot be invoked merely because a relationship failed to culminate in marriage. Background of the Case The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered under  Section 376 IPC  (rape) and  Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 . The complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner on the false promise of marriage and subjected to caste-based remarks. The FIR was lodged  nearly five months after  the alleged incident, following the breakdown of a long-standing relationship between two consenting adults....

Introduction In a progressive and people-centric judgment, the  Delhi High Court has clarified that completion of one year of separation is not mandatory for filing a divorce by mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . This ruling marks a significant shift in matrimonial jurisprudence, emphasizing  individual autonomy, dignity, and practical justice over rigid statutory timelines . Court:  Delhi High Court (Full Bench) Case:   x v.  y 2025 DHC: 11467 FB Decision Date:  17 December 2025 Background of the Case The issue arose due to conflicting judicial views on whether parties must mandatorily complete  one year of separation  before filing the  first motion  for divorce by mutual consent under  Section 13B(1)  of the Hindu Marriage Act. An earlier Delhi High Court judgment ( Sankalp Singh v. Prarthana Chandra ) allowed early filing but insisted that the divorce decree could only take effect after completion of one ye...

  Case Summary Citation: 2025 INSC 1395 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Augustine George Masih Date: 08 December 2025 📝 Background of the Case Two appellants (A-1: Dadu @ Ankush; A-2: Ankit) were convicted by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC for assault and outraging modesty of a Class XI girl. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction. The appellants approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition. ⚖️ Key Allegations by the Prosecutrix She was home alone at night when A-1 and A-2 came. A-2 allegedly pulled her dupatta and scratched her neck. When her brother (PW-2) arrived, both accused allegedly beat him. Allegation that A-2 knew she was a Scheduled Caste girl and acted with caste-based intention. 👩‍⚖️ Supreme Court’s Analysis The Supreme Court carefully analysed the written complaint, oral testimony, medical evi...

  The Delhi High Court in Shri X v. Smt. Y & Anr. Crl Rev P. 312/2023 (2025 DHC10936) has clarified a crucial legal position: a major unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) , even if the petition was originally filed under Section 125 CrPC . This judgment is significant for family law practitioners, matrimonial lawyers, and litigants seeking clarity on the rights of daughters under Indian law. Why This Judgment Matters This ruling strengthens the maintenance rights of daughters in India , especially in situations where: A daughter is studying and dependent on her parents The father disputes maintainability under Section 125 CrPC A combined application is filed before the Family Court There is a risk of multiple legal proceedings The High Court clarified that Family Courts can exercise jurisdiction under both CrPC and HAMA simultaneous...

  Q1 — Dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 Options (summarised):  (I) whereabouts unknown for two years; (II) husband sentenced to imprisonment for five years; (III) failed to perform marital obligations for one year; (IV) neglected to provide maintenance for a period. Answer:   (D) None of these  (with explanation & caution). Explanation:  Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 lists specific statutory grounds on which a Muslim wife may obtain a decree of dissolution — such as disappearance of husband for a longer statutory period, imprisonment for a specified (generally longer) term, failure to maintain or to provide marital obligations for a period specified in the statute, etc. The options in the question give particular durations (two years, five years, one year) which do  not  match the precise periods stated in Section 2. Because all of the options use incorrect periods/wording, the...