This development takes place in the form of new sets of video conferencing rules introduced by the Bombay High Court into virtual court hearings. This means streamlined and efficient procedures for the virtual judicial process to increase access and preserve decorum when attending such online cases. This is further adaptation from the judiciary side and its focus on efficient justice delivery post-COVID 19.Key Provisions of the Rules Scope and Applicability It shall be used for all virtual hearings of civil, criminal and others alike. It will encompass all stages starting with the filing of application to the final argument before conclusion and also in all cases for that matter. Platform Specifications It will make use of only secure and Court approved video conferencing platforms where the data privacy will not be compromised and information gathered cannot be accessed without prior permission. Identification and Authentication: Participants are forced to use their own names in registration, lawyers' enrollment numbers are made known for verification purposes and litigants and other witnesses are required to give their government-issued ID during the hearing for clear identification. Technical Requirements: The participants should have access to an active internet; they should have a functional microphone and camera. The participant should test his equipment during the actual hearing so there are no disruptions. There is an attachment for guidelines including courtroom etiquette on virtual hearings. One must dress formally as a litigator in a proper courtroom. Participants should have ensured that they are seated in a silent and professional setup while conducting the hearing. The record, so made as per above procedure shall be deemed as judicial record which can be resorted upon in any contention before courts. It will not record or disclose video conferencing proceedings, under new regulations, except under previous leave of court is permitted which is absolutely disallowed, and in which default will attract penalties by new orders. Technical support for troubleshooting: This can further give directives to High Court itself to set up dedicated help desks at litigants and lawyers help desks taking into account the technical glitches in respect of digital divide. Implications and Benefits New rules are likely to prove effective in making court cases not only accessible but efficient also for citizens with places of residence lying across distant locations or patients owing to other constraints which keep them away from journeys, thus bringing down the burden of the brick-and-mortar structure at courts and result in accelerated disposal of cases. Future Scope This step of the Bombay High Court, towards incorporating technology in the Indian judiciary system, is a move. The proper implementation of such rules would create an example for all the courts of the country to ensure increased transparency and ensure justice uninterrupted during the digital age.
The Madras High Court recently took cognizance of a horrific case of sexual assault which came to light on the Anna University campus. This involved an allegation that a male student assaulted a female student inside the campus of this elite institution, leading to grave concerns about student safety and security in educational premises.Case Details It is said that it had happened at late night when the female student who claimed herself to be alone then has been confronted and assaulted by her fellow student. Later, she informed her friends that she was going to file a formal complaint regarding the happening with the university administration. Such complaint made the university hold internal inquiry along with sending the matter to police for further investigation. Legal and Administrative Response Reported by media and public outcry, the Madras High Court suo motu took cognizance of the matter. It made it amply clear that educational institutions have the duty to provide a safe environment for their students and sought a detailed report from Anna University on the incident and the measures taken thereon. This has also highlighted the role of the Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013. It was asked whether the ICC at the university was functional enough and whether it was redressing such grievances. Security and Support to the Victim The High Court of Appeal mandated the university and other concerned law enforcement agencies to ensure necessary support and counseling by the survivor. It mentioned that the approach to issues of sexual violence should be victim-centered in not further traumatizing the survivor in any process of investigation. Concern for Campus Safety This incident has flared massive outcry among the students, parents, and activists regarding the adequacy of security in university campuses. The Madras High Court has asked Anna University to review its security measures and has directed upgrading those measures with the placement of CCTV cameras at vulnerable points, stepped up patrolling, and sensitization among students and staff at periodical intervals. Greater Aftermaths In these cases, the court intervention reflects a growing realization that strict action should be taken concerning sexual violence in educational institutes. It reminds the judiciary of their responsibility in keeping the institutions responsible and delivering justice to the victims. The case is under investigation, and the court asks for regular updates of the progress in this case; it shows how committed they are to justice and transparency. This tragedy will wake up the universities to give more focus on the safety of their students and build a zero-tolerance policy against sexual violence.
The Madras High Court severely condemned the Tamil Nadu Police for leaking the First Information Report about the sexual assault that took place in Anna University. The act has raised seriously serious questions on how the sensitive cases are handled, and this affects the victim's privacy as well as the whole judicial process.The Incident The incident occurred at the campus of Anna University. Allegedly, a male student assaulted a female peer on campus. It came to public notice only after the complainant brought it to the notice of the authorities in the university concerned, who further referred the complaint to the police. However, just after the filing of the FIR, within a week, its contents had already leaked to the media and spread widely in social media. It created massive outrage when women rights activists as well as those from privacy law advocacy denounced the breach. Courts' Strong Remarks Aware of the scenario, the Madras High Court criticized the Tamil Nadu Police for being slack in their work. According to the bench, such leakages are not only violations of the privacy rights of the victim but also undermine the integrity of the investigation. The court highlighted that in Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, revealing the identity of the victim of sexual assault attracts punishment. Although the name of the victim was not mentioned in the leaked FIR, all the details might lead to the identification of the victim, which also amounts to the same level of harm. Directive to Authorities The High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Police to conduct an internal inquiry to find out who is responsible for the leak and punish them accordingly. The High Court has also ordered the state government to take necessary arrangements so that this kind of incident may not happen in the future. It has further recommended stricter protocols for the handling of sensitive documents in rape cases, not to have access to FIRs without due need, to use encrypted digital systems, and sensitization of officials to legal and ethical confidentiality. Consequences of the Leak This leak has opened a further debate in India about the way cases of sexual assault are dealt with. This, therefore requires systemic reforms protecting victims' rights and sustaining credibility of investigations. Breaches of confidentiality require strict punishment according to advocates; hence, this shall never occur again. Future Directions This is a judgment by the Madras High Court that shows the judiciary won't tolerate any cases of sexual harassment and protects the victim of sexual violence. It reminds law enforcement agencies to be sensitive, maintain confidentiality, and act strictly in accordance with the law while dealing with such cases. The case remains under investigation, and the court wants to receive periodical updates on its development.
Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a landmark judgment to the effect that, in cases of disabled soldiers looking for disability pensions, the doubt must come in their favor. In this regard, this judgment speaks to a judiciary that is cognizant of the sacrifices of armed forces personnel and also the importance that needs to be attached in ensuring welfare post-service.Case Background It was an application by an ex soldier challenging the denial of disability pension. The ex soldier was medically boarded out from service due to his disability during service. He held that the soldier, due to military authorities, was ineligible for pension since disability was not incurred or aggravated by service in the armed forces. Observations of the High Court The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while deciding the matter, held that disabled soldiers should not be put in financial hardship due to procedural vagaries or due to lack of evidence. It held that where the cause of disability is either uncertain or there is lack of clarity regarding its connection with the military service, the benefit of doubt must lie in favour of the soldier. The bench noted that service in the military is marked by stringent physical and mental demands as well as extreme conditions. It could reasonably be inferred that such stringent conditions may aggravate or contribute to disabilities even though the same may not specifically appear as service-connected conditions. Judgment Highlights Benefit of Doubt Applies The court held that where there is no affirmative evidence of whether the disability is causally connected or aggravated by military service, presumption must be in favour of the soldier. AFT's Role: The high court directed the Armed Forces Tribunal to take liberal and humane approach in cases of such disability pension. Humanitarian considerations: This ruling has decided that the state, being under a moral responsibility, must take care of its soldiers who get disabled during their service in the nation. Pension denied to such soldiers goes against equity and justice principles. Relevance of Judgment This court ruling is important in ensuring that soldiers who have dedicated their lives to safeguarding the nation are not denied their legitimate rights. The judiciary continues to remind itself of its position regarding the upholding of marginalized groups' rights, such as those for disabled ex-servicemen. Broader Implications It would establish a precedent for cases all over the country to be treated in the same way and, thus, make for a more sensitive handling of the welfare of personnel of the armed forces. It also acts as a wake-up call to the military authorities to relook at the procedure of assessment of disability pensions. This judgment falls within a broad scope of giving service and respect to the minds serving the nation; by this, the social covenant between the state and defenders is re-enforced.
The Supreme Court of India ruled it cannot be done at the cost of his health and overall child welfare in its landmark judgment, the paramount consideration in disputes over custody and visitation disputes being that of the child's best interest, SC said.The case involved a divorced couple who sought regular visitation rights to the minor child. The mother, however, objected to this stating that it could affect the health, emotional stability, and continuity of the daily routine of the child. As such, medical condition and the emotional well-being of the child were the bones of contention leading the court to balance the right of the father with the interest of the child. The Supreme Court bench, led by Sanjiv Khanna, highlighted the importance of balancing parental rights with the primary consideration of the child's welfare. The court stated that while a father has the right to maintain a relationship with his child, such a right is not absolute and must yield to the child's best interests. In its observations, the court stressed that: Child-Centric Approach: All issues of visitation and access should be decided in light of the best interests of the child's physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. Health Issues: Where the child's health may be jeopardised or where such visitation could have harmful effects on his/her health then the court should deny such visitation. Case-Specific Approach: Judgment has to be given in light of the circumstances of the case; for example, in the case of a child, his age, health, or in the discretion of the child at suitable times. The court quoted principles from the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and other precedents that all matters regarding children must fall within the principle of the welfare of the child in disputes about their custody. It again reaffirmed that the court must be a parens patriae; the courts cannot let the child's welfare go in jeopardy. In this case, the judge has permitted the visit of the father with allowing this certain rights toward the child. Given the nature and health state of the child, the courts informed them to be conducted supervisingly where it won't make the child uneasy. It is landmark in family law since it reiterates that rights of parents are not absolute and have to be exercised keeping in consideration the welfare of the child. It has precedence for custody and visitation where the well-being of children is considered on all aspects of health, happiness, and security.
Recently, in a landmark judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that mere possession of land would not confer any title on the occupier of the land in cases where occupation is gratuitous. The contention was between one who occupied a parcel of land for several decades without furnishing any proof of ownership or title.The petitioner of the case was claiming ownership over the land purely on the grounds of prolonged possession and claimed that possession automatically translated into legal title. However, the opposite party argued that the occupation was without any legal agreement, payment, or documentation, making it gratuitous in nature. Justice made the legal position clear that possession for many years is not superior to the principle of title. The court relied on various precedents and decisions that had been handed down in other parts of India as well as provisions of laws relating to properties in the area. The judge explained that the determination of the land laws and judicial precedents repeatedly holds true that rights of ownership are not established by mere possession, much more so if gratuitous. In this case, at best, the possession without title would vest certain limited rights under the doctrine of adverse possession. But adverse possession is specific; in order for adverse possession, among other things, there has to be uninterrupted, hostile, and open possession against the true owner for a statutory period, none of which were met in this case. The High Court clarified that between gratuitous occupation and tenancy, there is a difference of principle. In the case of tenancy, the occupant is under an agreement of lease with the consent of the owner and subject to certain terms. Being without any such formal arrangement, gratuitous occupation was fundamentally different and lacked legal protection for the occupier. The judgment broadens the sphere of land dispute issues in Jammu and Kashmir, particularly when there is already much conflict arising from land use there. A word of warning was sent to people holding on to lands through non-documentation and no agreements with anyone because physical possession is stated here not enough to be termed lawfully under possession. The court, after the mutual cases, ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered petitioner to vacate the land and restore the possession to its rightful owner. This judgment means that the primary principle of law is reaffirmed, which was that the property ownership is established only with lawful title and not by mere occupation. This judgment is landmark in strengthening the property laws and upholding the rights of rightful landowners, ensuring that occupation without legal sanction does not dilute ownership claims.
While deciding a case, the Competition Commission of India dismissed a complaint, alleging abuse of dominant position on the part of Coal India Limited for availing its electronic auction scheme wherein arbitrary and discriminatory conditions had been fixed while making available allocations of coals through that scheme.The small-scale industry raised its complaint regarding the imposition of undue terms and conditions of e-auctioning process offered by the coal giant CIL. Some of the malpractices resorted to are as follows: Unfair Pricing: that there is higher pricing by CIL while selling through e-auctions than the notified prices. Discriminatory Prominence: where undue favors were accorded to the larger scale buyers on the basis of actual preference, and the small-sized players had to suffer discrimination. Limited Access: The complainant alleged exploitative terms that foreclosed smaller units from competing fairly in the tendering process. This action is against the provisions of Sections 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002. These sections ban abuse of dominant position through discriminatory prices and discriminating terms. working Conclusion by CCI The CCI, upon a detailed inspection, did not discover any prima facie case of abuse of dominance by CIL. Observations are as follows: Market Dynamics: e-auctions are conducted in a completely transparent non-discretionary manner wherein all parties are treated at par irrespective of size. Just Pricing: The e-auctions price is governed by the market dynamics of demand and supply as opposed to arbitrary decisions. Regulatory Compliance: The terms of the e-auction scheme were found to be in consonance with regulatory norms, and no preference was found or exclusionary practices. Absence of Evidence: The inquiry commission concluded that the complainant had failed to put forth prima facie evidence to prove discriminatory practices or predatory pricing. Order and Effect The CCI held that despite CIL's stronghold on the coal market, its acts in the e-auction scheme did not amount to an abuse of such dominance. The complaint was dismissed without any further investigation and thereby legitimized the process of e-auction by CIL. This decision signifies providing substantial evidence about anti-competitive practices and clearly shows that proper balance must exist between the exercise of regulatory overreach on mechanisms driven by markets, mainly those sectors with undeniably substantial public sector undertakings presence. In providing clarity over this permissible scope, the decision guarantees fair competition against dominant players such as the industries of coal so that operation freedoms are not squeezed.
The Karnataka High Court has ordered a stay on an arrest warrant issued against former Indian cricketer Robin Uthappa in respect of a case wherein there were allegations of provident fund (PF) fraud leveled against him. This was made after Uthappa moved the court challenging the warrant issued by the Employees' Provident Fund Organization and lower court proceedings against him.The case essentially concerns claims against Uthappa and other directors of a sports management firm for failing to deposit the provident fund contributions of the employees under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. EPFO had filed a legal proceeding against the company, inter alia claiming that the said company had defaulted in its PF payments and thus was violating its statutory obligation. Uthappa and other directors have an arrest warrant against them after they failed to appear before the lower court when they were called by summons several times. He is of the opinion that neither he manages the day-to-day business of the company nor has he ever taken any financial decisions on behalf of the company. This arrest warrant, in his view, was wholly without justification because Uthappa had never entertained an intention to evade legal procedure. The High Court felt that the prima facie case made against Uthappa was to be examined by the court in detail before determining to what extent he involved himself in the running of the business of the company. On that basis it felt that there was no justification for passing the arrest warrant at this stage and sent the orders of the trial court back for review. Important Thoughts of the Court The court highlighted that not all directors can be held liable for financial irregularities unless it is proven that they were actively involved in the company's operations. Due Process: The issuance of an arrest warrant must follow due process and should be a last resort when the accused shows deliberate non-cooperation. Scope of Liability: The liability under the EPF Act would be determined with respect to the role and responsibility of each director because the law does not automatically confer blanket liability. The notices were issued by the High Court to the EPFO and other respondents in the case as a temporary reprieve for Uthappa from arrest, but it made it clear that the investigation should continue so that accountability is fixed if any wrongdoing is established. This case, therefore, goes to indicate the plight of directors in matters of corporate governance, especially in cases where financial mismanagement has been alleged. It also distinguishes between the act of actual involvement and being nominally involved in legal matters.
Recently, Karnataka High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the interim bail application filed by the wife of Atul Subhash, the prime accused in the criminal case. This is the financial fraud case and both Atul Subhash as well as his wife are listed in the list of investigation.The wife of Atul Subhash prayed for interim bail on grounds of health besides looking after her minor children. She prayed through her counsel that she was never directly involved in the said offenses and detention for a longer period would prove to be a hardship for her family. The prosecution opposed her plea stating that she was an active participant in fraudulent activities and there existed a danger of evidence tampering. The High Court took cognizance of both legal and humanitarian pleas, ordered the trail court to measure the merit application based on fact and evidence put forth, but also held the view that while doing justice in a trial has to be tempered with, rights of the accused also need protection. This order reaffirms the commitment of the judiciary to the principles of fairness and the fact that the legal process is sensitive to the individual circumstances. The decision of the trial court on the interim bail application is awaited, which would probably decide the future course of the case. This case is an example of interplay between legal obligations and humanitarian concerns in the Indian judicial system.
Actor Allu Arjun was released on bail by the Telangana court as he is associated with a stampede that occurred during an event held for the launching of his movie Pushpa 2: The Rule. Some people got injured during the fan show of the movie which was conducted in Hyderabad, and this has given rise to many debates over the crowd management and crowd safety of prominent events.Charges were laid upon Allu Arjun as he was present at the function; he also promoted the function and made it more chaos within the venue. His lawyers argued that nothing wrong was with him because organisational mistakes were in the course of the event which led to the stampede but those who made the mistakes are the local authority and organizers themselves who did not prepare adequate crowd management mechanism. While delivering the judgment on the bail, the court observed that little or no direct evidence could be traced to prove that the accident involved Allu Arjun, but while passing the order it further pointed out investigation to assess responsibility, so that professional engagement by the actor shall not be much disturbed. The stampede case has also brought to debate the liability of celebrities hosting public events and the need for proper safety measures. Allu Arjun also condoled with the injured fans and assured that he will support them to regain their health. This is an incident that reminds us of big public gatherings that have no room to be completely safe, and such incidents indicate there is collective responsibility of the event organizers, authorities, and those participating in such events.
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to entertain a writ petition filed by Asaduddin Owaisi, the president of AIMIM, urging the effective implementation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which bars conversions of places of worship and their religious character prevalent on August 15, 1947.This comes at a time when debates and litigation over the status of different religious places across the nation are on the rise. According to Owaisi, it is legislation to maintain secularism by preventing the communalization of disputes related to historically and religiously prominent places. According to the plea, this aims to prohibit the court from doing further acts that serve against the formation of this very object behind its enactment. The petition has named some of the ongoing cases like the case concerning Gyanvapi mosque and Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case. The Owaisi stated that all such cases contravene the essence of the Act, citing that the legislation was aimed to disallow reopening of old grievances which would lead to an upheaval in society. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter and intimated that the case will involve an expansive examination of the scope of the Act and its compatibility with constitutional principles. Importantly, the hearing will speak to some very salient questions of whether it is more important to preserve historical religious sites or to adjudicate current disputes. This case speaks nationally and may set a precedent for the resolution of similar disputes while furthering the secular fabric of the country.
Landowners are entitled to the current market value of their land in case there is a huge delay in compensation arising out of the acquisition of the land. It is yet another landmark judgment coming from the apex court of India. It emphasizes fairness and equity in compulsory acquisitions of private properties by the state.The case originated as petitions filed by landowners to recover delayed payments for compensation regarding lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. It was submitted by the petitioners that substantial appreciation in their land value due to delay and violation of rights in awarding compensation on out-of-date rates were involved in the matter. During judgment delivery, the Supreme Court of India decreed that the minimum requirement for justice is to provide compensation at a prevailing market rate. In this case, it argued that the delayed compensation deprived the owners of reaping the actual benefits involved in the true value of the property, not only financial and emotional loss but also others. It was clarified by the court further that procedural inefficiencies or bureaucratic hurdles cannot be allowed to vitiate the rights of landowners. In such cases, the authorities were directed to compute the compensation at the prevailing market value and also account for the interest accrued during the delay period. This is another form of determining public interest and land acquisition balance and, at the same time, serves constitutional requirements of proprietors. This sort of cases is most probably going to create trends, thereby making it one case setting precedent in land rights.
The Kerala High Court made a landmark ruling when it held that the Kerala Bar Council cannot collect certificate verification fees from law graduates at the time of admission. According to the court, such fees have no statutory backing and cause undue harassment to aspiring lawyers.Background of the Case The petition was filed by law graduates who challenged the charging of a certificate verification fee by the Bar Council, as part of enrollment. It had been urged to be an arbitrary as well as unlawful practice for the reason that the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules do not envisage the same. The amount incurred was ₹ 750. The move was to validate and check authentic educational documents from each applicant. However, the present petitioners claim that this comes within the ambit of the bar council and will not be included in the costs where an aspirant has undergone the procedure. Important Arguments They contend that the Bar Council is regulated by statutory provisions and, under those circumstances, without an explicit legal mandate cannot charge fees. In addition, they submit that, under the Advocates Act and the regulations to it, there is clear detail regarding enrollment and no provision of any sort which prescribes to the levy of a verification fee. On the other side, the Bar Council defended the position by saying that the process of verification is a must to ensure the genuineness of educational qualifications and to avoid fraud. The council of barristers argued that this fee is a minimum charge that upholds the integrity of the profession. Court's Findings The Hon'ble Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, who presided over this Court, first considered the statutory framework and submitted that the Bar Council of India had no authority to introduce or collect certificate verification fees. He felt that he had to set up the principle that mere verification costs could not be passed on to applicants in the absence of any statutory provision. The judgment pointed out that the role of the Bar Council is to facilitate the enrollment process and not to create financial barriers for law graduates. Further, Justice Kunhikrishnan stated that the council could not impose fees beyond what is stipulated under the Advocates Act. Judgment and Implications The court declared the certificate verification fee illegal and compelled the Bar Council to withdraw this practice in future. It also issued orders in the case to return all the fees collected so far from the petitioners. This judgment will have an important bearing for all aspiring lawyers in Kerala: Their right to enroll into the Bar is now ensured not to be thwarted by unauthorized demands for money. It will also re-establish the principle that the statutory bodies should be functionally active within the confines of the law. Judgments are important reminders to the authorities of the need for transparency and accountability so that no undue hardships befall the entry of professionals in the legal profession.
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act Tribunal has upheld the five-year ban slapped by the Government of India on Sikhs for Justice. The UAPA Tribunal was headed by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma of the Delhi High Court. The group, which demands a separate Sikh homeland called Khalistan, was first declared an unlawful association under the UAPA in 2019. This verdict further strengthens the government's claim over the supposed anti-national activities of SFJ along with its linkages of spreading secessionist ideology.Ban Background The MHA had banned SFJ under Section 3 of the UAPA initially. According to them, the activities of the organization were detrimental to India's sovereignty, integrity, and public order. MHA had further asserted that SFJ's campaigns, including online referendums, were intended to disrupt peace in Punjab and other parts of India. It was accused of inciting violence, radicalizing youth, and seeking international support to propagate anti-India narratives. Arguments Before the Tribunal During the trial, the government had produced evidence that included intelligence reports and recorded incidents of SFJ's activities. These documents show that the organization was trying to create unrest in India by funding violent protests and using social media platforms to spread propaganda. The government added that SFJ was in league with foreign powers and had contributed to the influence of the 2021 farmers' protests. It further added that the activities of SFJ were beyond freedom of speech and were instead a threat to national security. However, SFJ dismissed all these claims and said its advocacy was peaceful and part of exercising democratic rights. It further argued that the ban on it violated the fundamental freedoms enshrined under the Constitution of India. Tribunal's Decision After weighing the evidence and arguments, Justice Sharma held that the activities of SFJ were clear threats to the sovereignty and integrity of India. According to the ruling, such secessionist activities may go adrift without a ban, thus damaging national security. This decision also points out how the campaigns and acts undertaken by SFJ are not in the form of just dissent or voice but also to destabilize the country which thus requires curb in order to maintain public order and internal harmony. Effects of this Judgment The verdict enforces the ban and conveys a strong message regarding India's zero-tolerance policy towards secessionist movements. At the same time, the judgment brings out the role of the judiciary in maintaining the balance between individual rights and national security concerns. This judgment itself strengthens the government's position in combating anti-national elements but reinforces the legal framework under the UAPA. This decision is likely to have a long-term impact on the activities of SFJ and other similar organizations, which would be a very important victory for India's internal security apparatus.
Recently, the Karnataka High Court held that prima facie, the wife of Atul Subhash abetted to suicide under the provisions of Section 306 Indian Penal Code was made out against her. Such a judgment followed a case filed by her husband's wife before the High Court challenging the very proceedings initiated after her husband met his death, which were, according to the wife, mala fide.The court was to consider the allegations and evidence before it. Such evidence included a suicide note from the deceased. It was argued that it carried the fact that he was mentally harassed and humiliated by the accused, on account of which the deceased had gone to such an extreme extent. It was argued by the prosecution that repeated cruelty and derogatory treatment would form the aspect of instigation that would qualify the requirements of abetment under Section 306 IPC. According to the judgment, abetment implies aiding or inciting suicide with intent. Though bare allegations are not sufficient, this case further gains strong evidence in the form of direct or circumstantial evidence establishing a nexus between the actions committed by the accused and the suicide of the victim. It made a point while dismissing the plea to quash the proceedings that whether the intention is criminal or otherwise and whether the accused's act has caused the death of the deceased are questions of trial. The High Court reemphasized that it should look at the evidence threadbare in deciding whether the accused was guilty or not. This judgment reaffirmed the commitment of the judiciary towards dealing with the issues of mental health and cruelty in relationships and holding responsible the individuals who cause such irreversible harm. The case would now be sent to the trial court for further adjudication.