Operation Sindoor and the Law of Armed Conflict: Proportionality, Necessity, and Civilian Safety

In response to the rising threat of cross-border terrorism and the recent Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor was launched by India as a military retaliation against terrorist infrastructure allegedly based in Pakistan-occupied territories. While the operation has garnered wide public support domestically, it also raises crucial questions in international law, particularly regarding the principles of necessity,

... Continue Reading.

TRANSFORMER REPLACEMENTS ARE O&M, NOT CAPITAL WORKS: SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CERC TARIFF REGULATIONS

TRANSFORMER REPLACEMENTS ARE O&M, NOT CAPITAL WORKS: SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CERC TARIFF REGULATIONS BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The Case of Powergrid Corporation of India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission &Ors. (Civil Appeal no. 5857-5858 of 2011) arose from a dispute over the capitalization of costs incurred by Powergrid Corporation of India Limited (Powergrid), a public sector

... Continue Reading.

ITC vs Controller of Patents: A missed opportunity in clarifying Section 3(b)

Long Post Ahead! The Indian Patent Office has its own jurisprudence regarding nicotine/tobacco-related inventions. Bloggers have earlier noted instances wherein the patent office has rejected nicotine/tobacco-related patent applications as violating Section 3(b) (see here, here and here).  While we all were eagerly waiting for the Delhi HC to give its judgement on one such instance,

... Continue Reading.

Supreme Court Emphasizes Caution in Granting Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offences: SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda

Supreme Court Emphasizes Caution in Granting Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offences: SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda The Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) vs. Aditya Sarda, decided on April 9, 2025, addressed the issue of granting

... Continue Reading.

NO REFUGE FOR UNAUTHORIZED BUILDINGS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS STRICT DEMOLITION AND EVICTION TIMELINES

NO REFUGE FOR UNAUTHORIZED BUILDINGS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS STRICT DEMOLITION AND EVICTION TIMELINES BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The case of  Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin&Ors. (SLP(C) No. 12199-12200/2025) originated from a public interest litigation addressed by the High Court, which tackled unauthorized constructions. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, ordered the police to issue notices to

... Continue Reading.

A slight modification of an existing design does not confer exclusive rights.

A slight modification of an existing design does not confer exclusive rights. Introduction: The case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare vs. Amigo Brushes Private Limited & Anr. revolves around an alleged infringement of a registered toothbrush design. The plaintiff, a global healthcare company, sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or offering

... Continue Reading.