The Supreme Court of India has confirmed the death penalty for Pakistan based Terrorist Azmal Kasab. The apex court of india has confirmed the lower court's order and ordered to hang the convict. The entire trial of Azmal Kasab was keenly observed by the world and this case established that our judiciary provides the best possible opportunity to an accused caught red handedly on 26-11 Mumbai terrorist attacks.

The UPA lead central government has filed an appeal in Supreme Court of India challanging the orders of Andhra Pradesh High Court which struck down the policy of reservations for Muslims in BC sub quota on religious grounds.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that a landlord cannot be told either by courts or the tenant as to for what purpose the premises has to be used, and requirement of house in question also need not be for "dire necessity".

In India, we have thousands of television channels broadcasting lacks of programs every year. there is no regulatory frame work for controlling the content on these programs. In press media, every article, before publication will undergo scrutiny at editorial desk but whereas in electronic media,this is not happening. Every channel is trying to give news as fast as it happens. The television channels have no self censure . Some of the programs are not in a position to view with children. Some news channels are broadcasting anti national news items and playing with the emotions of the poeple. Now the time has come to control these channels for the safety and integrity of the country

The Illegal mining scandal is rocking Karnataka state like never before. The report of Lok Ayukta revealed the active involvement of the former chief minister BS Yedurappa and opposition leader Kumara Swamy in the scandal. Several ministers and officials are in jails already and a CBI probe is already started. Now the Government of Karnataka is initiating action against the officials of Mining department, Revenue Department and Forest Department who gave permissions without following the norms and resulting into a large scale loss to Exchequer.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India advised the law makers to amend the law of adverse possession, wherein a trespasser is having unfair advantage, who is taking the title of a building or land from the true owner without paying any consideration and also taking shelter from the courts of law after 12 years of possession. In State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar and others case, the Supreme Court of India opined that the negligence of the land owner should not be made beneficial to an encroacher in getting the property rights, who never paid valuable consideration for such an interest. The brief facts of the case are, the State of Haryana, represented by the District Superintendent of Police filed a suit for declaration of title on adverse possession and also for cancellation of a sale deed and the subsequent mutations in the revenue records. The claim of the Police Department is that they are in the possession of the suit schedule property which is an open land comprising of 8 biswas (approximately 400 square yards) in Hidayathpur Chhavni, Haryana from the last 55 years. They further allege that the said land was sold away by the defendants on 26th March 1990. They pray that the said sale and subsequent judgments and decrees are to be set aside. The Defendants contested that the said land was recently occupied by the Plaintiffs by using force and constructed the boundary wall. The Plaintiff has failed to prove the possession and could not produce any document to show their possession. On the contrary, the revenue records established the ownership of the Defendants. The Court reiterated that the long possession is not necessarily adverse possession and that no declaration can be sought by a Plaintiff with regard to the ownership on the basis of adverse possession. During the course of the judgment, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to discuss about the background of the law of adverse possession and suggested the Parliament to take up discussions for amending the law of adverse possession in favour of the true owner.

In a landmark judgment, the Competition Commission of India imposed a penalty of Rs. 630 crores against DLF Limited for its alleged monopolistic and unfair trade practices against the buyers of their housing project. The CCI lamented that the company abused the dominant position being bigger and better party both in executing the agreement and while implementing its obligations under the contract.

The flat owners filed several complaints against DLF before the Competition Commission of India and the facts of those cases are almost similar. The brief facts of one of the cases are The DLF Company announced a housing project in DLF city, Gurgaon, Haryana in 12.67 acres land comprising of 13 towers with 19 floors each and having 4 flats in every floor. The entire project contains 900 flats as per their initial broacher. The Company had announced the development of the project even without earmarking the land for the said project and also without any building permission approvals from concerned authorities; the Company started issuing advertisements and also started bookings in the said project. The Company promised that the parties can occupy the flat in 30 months. Believing the campaign of the Company the people invested money and purchased the flats. The Company later on got approvals for 29 floors and proportionately they have increased the number of flats to 1560 instead of 900. Due to the increase in the number of flats, the original allottees substantially lost the area in the undivided common share and also lot facilities. The agreements are printed formats did not permit any bargaining or gave any opportunity to the flat owners as far as to negotiate on the terms and conditions. The Company did not respond to the queries of the flat owners with proper answers resulting into the above case. The competition commission after going through the facts came to conclusion that DLF acted arbitrarily by using their dominant position in the market resulting into the agony of the purchasers. The examination of this case has brought forth several areas of concern pertaining to the housing sector in India. The Commission felt that although there is a plethora of laws, there is no proper regulation of the real estate sector, particularly the housing sector. In order to promote overall consumer welfare, to ensure free and fair competition in real estate residential market and to set standards of conduct of enterprises engaged in similar nature of trade, the Commission made recommendations to the Central Government and all State Governments to come out with real estate regulations at the earliest for ensuring overall consumer welfare and to discourage unfair trade practices that seem prevalent in the sector.

The Supreme Court of India has interpreted the definition of AGENT in the Consumer Protection Rules 1987, in its true sense, as any person with competence and he need not be an Advocate. While disposing a 10 year old application of the Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court directed the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to frame rules for accreditation to non advocates to practice in consumer forums. Brief facts of the case are that a consumer complaint was filed against the tour operators for the deficiency of service and the said case was filed by an authorized agent instead of an advocate. The Respondents raised objections as to the locus standi of the authorized agent to file the Complaint and as a result, the matters were stayed. Even the State Commission upheld the same. Then the matter was referred to division bench of the High Court of Bombay. The High Court held that the Consumer forum is not a civil court and the party before the District forum cannot be compelled to engage services of an advocate. The Court held that the right to appear includes right to address the court, examination, cross examination of witnesses and oral submission etc. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, reiterated the same and said that the authorized agents need not be advocates and they are permitted to appear on behalf of the parties before the consumer forums. The Supreme Court of India also directed the National Consumer Redressal Commission to formulate the rules and regulations for giving accreditations to the Non advocates practicing at Consumer forums. Agents can be friends or relatives but has to offer free service.

The President of India accepted the resignation of tainted Judge of Calcutta High Court, Justice Sowmitra Sen. Justice Sen was facing impeachment motion in the Parliament. The Rajya Sabha has voted in favour of the impeachment of the tainted Justice, who is accused of misappropriation of funds, when he was acting as an official receiver in one case. In the month of August, he tried to defend the charges levied against him in Rajya Sabha, but he was unsuccessful. When the impeachment motion in Lok Sabha was likely to be moved, he submitted his resignation papers to the President of India in which he mentioned that he was not given with sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations in Rajya Sabha and he was very unhappy with the little time that was given to him in Lok Sabha for defending the motion. In the history of independent India, we came across only three occasions, where the Parliament decided to initiate impeachment proceedings against the Judges. We cannot draw conclusion that all the remaining judges who occupied the High Courts and Supreme Courts all these years are sincere and honest. In our democracy, no one can question the integrity of a judge and the veracity of a judgment. Whenever there is a difficulty, the people look at judiciary expecting rational solutions from them. They feel that the court is their last resort but some of the judges are not performing to the expectations of the people. Due to their indifference towards the problems of the people, the people are suffering lot but tolerating silently due to the fear of contempt proceedings.