LiveLaw Daily | AAP PIL Dismissed | Women Lawyers Reservation | Savukku Shankar Bail | Mahua Moitra

Added: 2026-05-20

[00:00:00]Hello and welcome to LiveLaw Daily, your daily no noise briefing on the most important legal developments from India's courts. I'm your host, Debojit Das, and without wasting much of your time, let's begin. We start with a public interest litigation filed in the Delhi High Court today which sought to use a contempt order against Aam Aadmi Party leaders to disqualify them from elections and get the party itself deregistered. The court shut it down, and the courtroom exchange is worth paying attention to. This PIL was directed against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak. It relied on Justice Swatanter Sharma's earlier criminal contempt order against the AAP leaders arguing that it reflected their non-allegiance to the Constitution, which the petitioner claimed would disqualify both the individuals and the party itself. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Kariya called the petition highly misconceived, and the submission about constitutional non-allegiance absolutely baseless. The bench clarified that a contempt order can only be read in the context of the case it arose from and not stretched to mean something else entirely. On deregistration of the Aam Aadmi Party, the Supreme Court said that the Election Commission can deregister a party in only three narrow situations.

[00:01:06]Number one is fraud in obtaining registration. Number two is non-conformity in party particulars like name or address under the Representation of People Act, or the party itself admitting it has no faith in the Constitution. None of these applied here in this case. The Chief Justice then asked the counsel directly, is there even a provision in the Representation of the People's Act for deregistration?

[00:01:25]The counsel conceded that there wasn't.

[00:01:27]The court's conclusion here was that if someone is punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, that is not a route to electoral disqualification, and the petition was dismissed. Our second story starts with a few numbers. Out of approximately 1.54 million advocates enrolled across India, only 284,507, that is roughly 15% of them, are women.

[00:01:47]And the gap only widens the higher up you go. Since independence, not a single woman has been appointed as the Attorney General or the Solicitor General of India. That's the backdrop to a public interest litigation filed before the Supreme Court today by the Ladli Foundation Trust. It sought a minimum 30% reservation for women advocates in all High Court panels, government law officer positions, and central and state government impanelments. A bench of Chief Justice of India Suryakant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi has issued notice to the Union and all states. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the Ladli Foundation Trust, flagged something beyond just numbers on a panel list.

[00:02:21]That is that even when women advocates do get impaneled, they're not necessarily allotted any cases. A spot on the panel, he argued, means nothing without a mechanism to ensure actual work. Senior Advocate Dr. Monika Goswami brought the Haryana situation to the bench's attention. No woman has ever been appointed to the post of Senior Additional Advocate General since the post was created. The Chief Justice of India's wry response was, "Why talk of Senior Additional Advocate General when there's no appointment in the Advocate General's position, either?" Dr. Monika replied, "That's one step below the Advocate General, too." When the Chief Justice of India asked how many women Advocate Generals there have been across the country, both counsel said one or two at most. The court has issued notice and called for comprehensive data from all parties. And for our third story here, I would like you to picture this.

[00:03:06]You pick up what looks like a mango juice tetra pack, complete with fruit pictures on it, but it's actually vodka.

[00:03:11]Alcohol being sold in tetra packs has come up before the Supreme Court a few times already, but today it actually ended up taking formal action in the matter. The concern is at the heart of a PIL filed by Community Against Drunken Driving, or CADD, an organization campaigning against drunk driving and underage drinking since 2001. Appearing for this organization, Advocate Vipin Nair told the court that alcohol is now being sold in tetra packs, sachets, and PET bottles virtually indistinguishable from everyday fruit juice packaging.

[00:03:40]Products like Bounty Premium Vodka and Premium Romana Vodka, all carrying fruit imagery, are being sold without prominent health warnings. Nair noted that tobacco packaging carries mandatory warnings. Alcohol in packs does not.

[00:03:53]Chief Justice Suryakant's response here, "This is very deceptive." he said. The petitioners' argument is that this packaging makes alcohol cheaper, easier to conceal, and far more accessible.

[00:04:03]That too, to minors, to commercial vehicle drivers, and to anyone looking to drink in bars, cinema halls, or even moving vehicles. The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union government and the excise departments of all states. This isn't the first time the Chief Justice of India's bench has flagged this concern. So, it will be interesting to see how develops. And for our fourth story here, we have the caste census in the middle of it. The caste census today was challenged before the Supreme Court, and the bench did not take long to send it packing. The petitioner appeared in person before a bench of Chief Justice of India Suryakant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi. His argument was that collecting caste data in the upcoming census is unjustified and could be misused, particularly if it ends up in the hands of corporate entities and politicians. He also contended that the government already has sufficient data, making fresh enumeration unnecessary.

[00:04:50]The Chief Justice of India was not persuaded, however. He said, "Whether the census should be caste-based is a policy matter, and any government needs to know how many people belong to backward classes in order to design welfare measures for them." The court said it had no basis to step in, and that was essentially the end of it. The bench declined to interfere, dismissing the petition on the ground that caste enumeration is squarely within the policy domain of the government. Courts have consistently drawn this line. Where the government has chosen a policy direction, there is no constitutional violation made out to. Judicial intervention does not follow. This petition ran straight into that principle. Savukku Shankar, the YouTuber journalist who has been fighting legal battles across multiple cases. He has been granted bail by the Madras High Court today in an alleged extortion case. So, here's the background in the case. Shankar allegedly posted that an upcoming Tamil film, Red and Follow, was financed through drug money. Here's the background. Shankar allegedly posted that an upcoming Tamil film, that is Red and Follow, was financed through drug money. When the producer asked him to pull the content down, Shankar allegedly demanded 10 lakh rupees. When the producer came to his office, things allegedly turned physical, assault, threats to his life, and rupees 1 lakh snatched from him on the spot. The sessions court had already rejected bail citing the gravity of the offense and Shankar's history of evading judicial process and defying high court directions. He then came to the Madras High Court. Shankar's defense here was that the case was entirely fabricated, one in a series of proceedings designed to silence him. He also flagged that the police filed the charge sheet on March 23rd, the exact same day he filed a petition seeking a CBI transfer of the investigation, pointing to what he called a deliberate and hurried filing.

[00:06:25]The judge in the case took note of the charge sheet being filed and on record and granted bail. Shankar must now appear before the police station every day. Moving on to the sixth story here and it is Mahua Moitra in Calcutta High Court. TMC's Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra appeared in the Calcutta High Court today joining a challenge against the West Bengal government's recent notification regulating cattle slaughter ahead of Eid al-Adha. The notification issued under the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act of 1950 mandates a fit certificate before any bull, bullock, cow, calf, or buffalo can be slaughtered. Crucially, only animals above the age of 14 years or those permanently incapacitated due to injury or incurable disease are eligible, after veterinary assessment of course. This matter was moved before a division bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Parthasarathi Sen and TMC's Mahua Moitra also appearing during the hearing. She argued that the notification would financially impact economically weaker sections who are dependent on cattle rearing and trade and that the restrictions also interfere with the practice of Qurbani associated with Eid al-Adha. The court, however, adjourned the matter before noting that copies of the petition hadn't been served on the state and central governments yet. It is listed as the first case for hearing on Thursday morning. And for our second last story here is the rising crude oil prices and energy security concerns that have prompted an administrative response. This time from the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court. The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has issued a circular effective from May 21st of this year that invokes what it calls a nationwide call for economic self-defense. The circular has been issued by the office of Registrar General and will remain in force until further orders. So, here's what it mandates. First, virtual hearings are to be encouraged. During the vacation period starting June 8th, the vacation benches will perform entirely in virtual mode. Though advocates with genuine can still appear physically. Second, the leave travel concession facility for staff stands suspended. Third, registry officers are directed to pool their official transport wherever feasible to cut down on fuel consumption. And fourth, judicial academy will conduct no physical training programs. All workshops, orientations, and academic activities shift to virtual mode now. It is a court responding to a macroeconomic concern with concrete ground-level changes to how it functions day-to-day.

[00:08:36]And for our last story here, we turn towards Bollywood. Durandhar is at the center of a national security concern raised before the Delhi High Court today. And the bench did not dismiss it outright. Deepak Kumar, an SSB head constable posted in Delhi, appeared in person before the division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Kalia. His argument was that Durandhar, the revenge, this film though presented as fiction reveals how Indian undercover agents operate in foreign countries, discloses locations and details of actual covert operations, and violates the Official Secrets Act. He also pointed out that the CBFC or the Central Board of Film Certification does not consult intelligence officers before clearing films of this nature. The bench found the concerns worth addressing. It drew an analogy. Even a fictional film showing a character researching suicide methods can cause real harm. The label of fiction does not neutralize impact.

[00:09:24]And the same logic it said applies here.

[00:09:25]So, the court disposed of the plea by directing the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film Certification to treat Kumar's petition as a formal representation and take an informed decision. Any corrective measures must also be communicated back to Kumar. The bench also suggested that the sensor board should have clear guidelines for films touching on military and intelligence matters. And that's a wrap on Live Law Daily. If you found this useful, do subscribe, share, and leave us a review wherever you're listening. We'll be back tomorrow with the latest from India's courts.