Articles published under the Editorial Desk byline are written collaboratively by the LegalRepublic editorial team.
An arrest is not a casual administrative act. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the officer must wear a visible name badge, prepare a memorandum of arrest, inform a relative, record reasons in writing, and produce the arre
The new BNSS lets the police run a 14-day preliminary inquiry before deciding whether to register an FIR — but only for cognizable offences punishable with three to seven years' imprisonment, and only with senior officer permission. The Lal
If a Station House Officer refuses to register an FIR for a cognizable offence, the law gives you three sequential escalations — the Superintendent of Police, the Magistrate, and the High Court. Each step is documentary, each step works.
A Zero FIR is the FIR you can register at any police station — not just the one with territorial jurisdiction. The SHO has no legal ground to send you away. This guide explains when to demand a Zero FIR, exactly how the procedure works, and
Registration of an FIR is mandatory the moment a cognizable offence is disclosed. Section 173 of the BNSS sets the procedure; Lalita Kumari binds the SHO; and if the station refuses, three written escalations exist — the SP, the Magistrate,
Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 carries forward the summary maintenance jurisdiction that Section 125 of the CrPC, 1973 has exercised since 1974. The substantive content is unchanged. The procedural law, however,
A swab, a surgical mop, a pair of forceps or a length of gauze left inside the body when the wound is closed is one of the few medical injuries the law treats as nearly self-proving. The standard of care for a surgeon is the protective Bola
A Muslim will (wasiyat) in India is governed by the personal law of the testator, saved by Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and excluded from the bulk of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by Section 58 of t
A buyer who has paid, taken possession, and acted on the agreement — but never received a registered sale deed — is not without protection. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 imports a modified form of the English equity of p
The intestate succession of a Hindu is governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, read with the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Act overrides the pre-1956 customary Hindu law to the extent of inconsistency (Section 4). Two dist
Every partition suit in a Hindu family turns on a single classification question — is the property in dispute ancestral or self-acquired? The answer decides whether the sons (and after 2005, the daughters) take a share by birth or whether t
When a worker is killed or injured in a motor accident that arises out of and in the course of his employment, two statutory compensation regimes open at once. The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (until the 2009 amendment renamed it, the
An online purchase that goes wrong raises a question the older consumer law never had to answer cleanly — when the consumer dealt with a platform but bought from a seller listed on it, who answers for the defective good, the platform or the
A film is uploaded to a video-sharing site. One upload is the whole movie, monetised, drawing the audience away from the rightful release. Another is a two-minute extract inside a fifteen-minute review, or a few seconds used to report a new
A flat purchase in India is governed by three statutes operating in layers — the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 supplies the substantive law of sale (Sections 54 and 55), the Registration Act, 1908 supplies the formalities of conveyance (Se
A cashless authorisation under a health-insurance policy is a contractual entitlement, not a discretionary favour. It is mediated by the IRDAI (Health Insurance) Regulations, 2016, the IRDAI (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulati
On 28 September 2018 a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court refused by 2:1 to constitute an SIT into the Bhima Koregaon arrests. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented. A reading of his 41-paragraph opinion on fair investigation, Article 32,
Restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — and its analogues in Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Sections 32-33 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (Christian) and Section 36 of the Parsi Marriage and
A private criminal complaint under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [Section 200 of the CrPC, 1973] is the statutory route into the Magistrate's court when the police will not register an FIR, when the offence is
A motor policy that limits the cover to a named driver — the "named-driver-only" or "second-driver-excluded" endorsement — is a familiar feature on small-fleet, family-car and tractor policies. The clause produces a coverage gap when an unn
On 1 August 2024 a seven-judge bench overruled <em>E.V. Chinnaiah</em> by 6:1 and permitted States to sub-classify within Scheduled Castes. The lone dissenter, Bela M. Trivedi, devoted the first quarter of her opinion not to Article 341 but
Danial Latifi v Union of India , (2001) 7 SCC 740, a five-judge Constitution Bench, upheld the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 by reading Section 3 so as to require the former husband to make a "reasonable and fair
The Western Bench of the NGT has directed a Maharashtra-based cement manufacturer to halt all construction activity at its Solapur facility after finding that an ongoing capacity-expansion project was being executed without a fresh Environm
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act gives you a clear, time-bound route to recover a bounced cheque amount — but the timeline is unforgiving and the legal-notice format is non-negotiable. Here's the procedure, the traps, and what
Half a century after ADM Jabalpur, Justice H.R. Khanna's solitary dissent reads less like a counterargument and more like the only judgment that survived. A reconstruction of what he refused to concede, and why his colleagues refused with h
In 1965, four judges of the Supreme Court held that Parliament's amending power was unlimited. The fifth, Justice K. Subba Rao, said the question was open. Eight years later, Kesavananda agreed. A reconstruction of the dissent that the Cour
