Dr Swati Jindal Garg

The recent killing of Umesh Pal, the key witness in the 2005 murder of the then newly-elected Bahujan Samaj Party MLA Raju Pal, has brought into focus the sorry state of the witness protection system in India.

Recently, former Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar Jitendra Narain was granted conditional bail in a case where he was accused of rape. Bail can take different forms and depends on each individual case.

The Gauhati HC’s anticipatory bail to nine men accused under POCSO shows there is no presumption of sexual assault in every case of child marriage. Most are consensual and need to be handled with care.

Artistic expression was once again under fire as a student of MS University was debarred for “objectionable” artwork. But courts have, time and again, come down heavily on such moral policing.

A public interest litigation filed in the Delhi High Court has brought into focus the status of the Fund and whether it should be made accountable to public scrutiny. The centre’s legal stand leaves many questions unanswered.

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court lamented the increasing number of frivolous public interest litigations being filed in courts and echoed the sentiments of the Supreme Court that such litigations are the bane of the judicial system. Is there any way to restrict their misuse?

Protests have erupted across Kerala after the state government made public a satellite survey report on areas that are to fall within the proposed buffer zone around 22 wildlife sanctuaries and parks in line with the Supreme Court directions. The protests are against what they say is the government’s “hasty” satellite survey of forest areas.

In various judgments, the Court has reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The accused must have his freedom in order to establish his innocence, it said.

The trend of authorities rushing to administer justice by demolishing the homes of accused without following due processes of law has been slammed by courts.

In a landmark decision, the Court said that direct evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe is not necessary to prove guilt and I can convict a person based on circumstantial evidence.