Top Legal Internships – Law School Times by Socio Legal Corp

Internship Opportunity at Office of the Chief Justice of India, Dr Justice D.Y. Chandrachud: Apply by Dec 8

Click here :

Internship Opportunity at Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi [Stipend Rs.20k]: Rolling Applications

Click here :


Click here:

Internship Opportunity at State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh [2 Batches; 50 Interns]: Apply by Dec 2 & Dec 31

Click here:

Cyber Blog India

Click here:

Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul nominated as Executive Chairman of NALSA


Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul is the second judge of the Supreme Court after Justice DY Chandrachud to be nominated by the President for Executive Chairman Of NALSA. The post is given to the second senior judge of the Supreme Court.

The Ministry of Law and Justice Issued a notification by the Ministry of Law and Justice on November 25 quoting  Clause (B) of subsection(2) of Section 3 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which gives power to the President of India to nominate a Supreme Court Judge to the position of Executive Chairman of NALSA. According to the Act, the CJI is the Patron-in-chief of the NALSA hence, a serving or retired judge of the Supreme Court is selected for the nomination by the president in consultation with the CJI.  

Special Marriage Act: Two men file a petition in the Supreme Court for recognition of same-sex marriage

Trending Now


Two homosexual men from Hyderabad have filed a fresh PIL with the Supreme Court of India asking for the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to recognise same-sex marriages. The case will be heard today by a Supreme Court panel presided over by Chief Justice DY. Chandrachud.

Facts of the Case

Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, the petitioners, have been together for over ten years. Both lovers and their families experienced the fragility of life as a result of the epidemic. During the second wave, they both received COVID. After they had recovered, they made the decision to commemorate their marriage with all of their loved ones by having a wedding-cum-commitment ceremony on their ninth anniversary. In December 2021, they had a ceremony where their parents, relatives, and friends blessed their love.


The Special Marriage Act, according to the petitioners, violates the Indian Constitution insofar as it discriminates against same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples by denying them both legal rights and the social respect and status that come with marriage. The petitioners contend that the Indian Supreme Court has consistently upheld couples’ freedom to marry someone of any caste or religion. Now, petitioners contend that LGBTQ+ people should also have the freedom to marry anyone they want.


In the Navtej Singh Johar and Puttaswamy cases, the Supreme Court ruled that LGBTQ+ people had the same constitutional rights to equality, respect, and privacy as other citizens.

Provisions used in the case

Special Marriage Act, 1954


Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty &Anr. v. Union of India

Written By – Nikita Shankar

Delhi High Court Rules Against The Unauthorized Use Of The Photos, Voice Or Name Of The Actor Amitabh Bachchan


Actor AmitabhBachchan (plaintiff) was granted ad interim ex parteinjuction in favour of him by the Delhi High Court in the suit filed by the former for the protection of his publicity rights.


Many online fraud websites like the fake Kaun Banega Crorepaty (KBC) scam exploited photographs and videos of renowned actor Amitabh Bachchan. The defendants were using his images to lure people to enter a lucky draw and win a voice call with Bachchan in exchange. Some of the accused have even put the actor’s image on t-shirts and registered domain names such as and The actor is represented by senior attorney Harish Salve, who is seeking an injunction against the defendants, as well as a john doe action.


Justice Navin Chawla of the Delhi High Court stated that a prima facie case was made forth in favour of the actor and against the defendants, who are various individuals and corporations accused of infringing Bachchan’s personality rights. The court also stated that the defendants used the actor’s celebrity status without his permission. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff because the defendants’ actions were bringing disrepute on the actor. The court barred the defendants from using Amitabh Bachchan’s name, voice, or image for personal or commercial advantage in any way. It has also directed DoT and MeitY to require the respective internet service providers to remove all links or websites provided by him in the plaint. The court has also ordered telecom service providers to block access to all phone numbers used by the defendants to circulate messages on messaging apps.

Case name: Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi &ors.

Madras HC sought responses from Karnataka and Kerala Governments on their delay in nominating nodal officers to assist SIT in probing elephant deaths

Madras HC sought responses from the Karnataka and Kerala government on their delay in nominating nodal officers for Special Investigating Team (SIT) to look after the recent drastic increase in wildlife offences. Further, earlier this year, the court clarified on the constitution of team, which comprisesCentral Bureau of Investigation (CBI), state police and forest department officials, to probe into cases relating to elephant poaching and other forest crimes, which were recently reported in the areas of western ghats. Also, it was noticed that the poachers were committing crimes in Tamil Nadu and escaping to the nearby states of Karnataka and Kerala.

The bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthyhave asked both of the states to submit the nominations by December 22. Further, the court was disappointed with the state’s response, promising to shortly appoint the nodal officer. The court pointed to the directions, which were issued back in April, and the state’s inability to nominate during this span of time.

The court then asked IFS officer Prakriti Srivastava and Adv. Shweta Krishnappa, who were representing the states of Kerala and Karnataka respectively, “When will you do it? What is the difficulty? Do you not have capable officers? and told them to not simply appear on VC asking for an extension in nominating.

Further, the court directed to reduce the speed of trains to 30 kmph at night while running between the tracks of Palakkad and Podanur to reduce the odds of hitting elephants at night. In reply to what the court said, Adv. PT Ramkumar (standing counsel for the Southern Railway) objected to the technical infeasibility, which was denied by the court mentioning the equal importance of animals and human lives. Concluding with, the court mentioned banning night traffic altogether if the speed of trains continues to be the same.

Case Name: S Manoj Immanuel v Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: WP (MD) 19971 of 2018

Enforce Stricter Compliance to Manual Scavenger Act: Delhi High Court

Delhi Government received directions from the Delhi High court while disposing of a Public interest litigation to ensure strict compliance in regard to the statutory provisions in Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 Act, and the Rules framed.

The Bench also directed the government to be mindful of multiple recommendations submitted by the Delhi Commission for SafaiKaramcharis (DCSK) and to take a decision within 60 days of any such recommendation being made.

The petition apart from asking for compliance with the law also skeed health insurance and medical facilities for sanitation workers and their families.

In response to this the National Commission for SafaiKaramcharis and the Central Government stated that the Commission had directed all the District Magistrates or District Commissioners to furnish details of all safaikaramcharis who have lost their lives due to COVID. Apart from this the court was also informed about the safety and safeguarding measures and details about the training of the safaikaramcharis. It also mentioned about the vaccination and the residential facilities of the workers.

The court was given information that the provisions are being followed and the compensation money is being paid along with the adequate equipment being given to the workers

The court observed that the Delhi Government “does not have any other choice” except to implement the statutory provisions as contained under the 2013 Act and relevant rules

Disposing the PIL the court said,”In light of the aforesaid, no further orders are required to be passed in the present PIL. The same stands disposed of accordingly,”


Provision Used:

  1. Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act,2013.

Starbucks to get litigation cost of Rs.13 lakhs over Frappuccino trademark infringement from a Jaipur-based cafe

Recently, Delhi High Court ordered a Jaipur-based cafe to pay damages of Rs.2 lakhs along with a whopping litigation cost of Rs.13 lakhs to Starbucks for Frappuccino trademark infringement.

Starbucks has a worldwide reputation in the “FRAPPUCCINO” mark and they possess a trademark for the same, which was truly said by Justice Navin Chawla. The illegal use of the trademark by the defendant clearly shows dishonesty and intent to deceive an unwary consumer and resulting in confusing the consumer between their goods and the plaintiff’s good.

Starbucks filed case against a café called ‘LOL Café’ alleging for engaging in “FRAPPUCCINO” trademark infringement. The café used to sell a beverage with the name of ‘BROWNIE Chips FRAPPUCCINO’ without any permission/license and hence, leading Starbucks to ask the defendant café from not use the FRAPPUCCINO trademark, either alone or with any prefix or suffix.

Earlier, On August 23, 2019, the Court had summoned the defendant (LOL Café) regarding the same issue and also passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction against them.

Even after the summon, the defendant chose not to appear or file any written statements from their end, as a result, they proceeded against the ex-parte.

Further, the HC noted that Starbucks itself uses the FRAPPUCCINO mark as a suffix for its beverages, like ‘Java Chip Frappuccino’ and others. Therefore, the court found adapting the mark as dishonest and with an intention to deceive an unwary consumer. With regards to a similar case‘Teaquila A Fashion Café &Anr’, damages of Rs.2 lakh were provided to Starbucks, as suggested by Justice Chawla.

Anticipatory bail is only a statutory right and is not related to Article 21: Allahabad High Court

Earlier this week, Allahabad High Court mentioned about the second and successive anticipatory wherein it stated that bail application is not maintainable. Also, mentioning about seeking anticipatory bail it further stated that under Section 438 of CrPC it is only a statutory right. Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta further observed that while Section 439 of CrPC (provision getting regular bail pleas) flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 438 of CrPC is merely a statutory right and the power to give anticipatory bail is not given by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Surprisingly, in Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi) and others, the SC mentioned the illogical interpretation of not considering Section 438 of CrPC flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to the precedent judgements which mention Article 21 is not related to Section 438 CrPC, the SC mentioned it conflicted with the broad terms declared by the Constitution Bench of the Top Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State of Punjab 1980 AIR 1632.

Regarding the nature of Section 439 of the CrPC, the Court further noted that if the accused’s regular bail application is denied, he may file a second and subsequent bail application on the basis of a substantial change in the facts between the first and the subsequent applications. However, the court also advised not to fill out second or subsequent bail applications on the basis of new arguments/twists based on the previous facts.

Additionally, the provision of speedy trial is a Constitutional right of the accused granted to him by Article 21 of the Constitution, the court gave the right to make a second bail application only if the first application of the accused is dismissed on merits and has delayed the trial. Talking about the nature of Section 438 of CrPC, the court clearly mentions that the second/subsequent anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

Guwahati High Court Upheld The Conviction Of A Man Who Brutally Murdered His Minor Daughter


The Guwahati High court bench consisting of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Mitali Thakuria decided to uphold the conviction of man who murdered his 2.5 year daughter in a very heinous manner due to a quarrel between him and his wife.


In 2016, a woman lodged a FIR against her husband. In the Fir she stated that her husband took their daughter out to a biscuit shop and there he stabbed her on the chest with a sharp object and killed her. She also stated that she was an eye witness of the whole incident. According to the information provided, the husband believed that his wife was having an illicit affair with a boy and due to this he murdered their daughter.

In 2018, after the conclusion of the trial, charges were framed and the chargesheet was filed. The accused was convicted under section 302 of the IPC and was awarded rigorous life imprisonment. The appellant was aggrieved by the judgement and went for an instant appeal.


The accused (husband) was represented by the Amicus Curiae M. Dutta. They argued that there was no other eye witness and evidence except for the wife. Theaccused while recording his statement recorded under Section 313 in CrPC, asserted that the wife killed their daughter and after that she assaulted him with a knife. He also claimed that she got married with another man with whom she was having an affair.

On the wife’s side, the state argued that the wife of the accused by an eye witness to the offence and to add, she was consistent and clear with her statement recorded under section 161 CrPC and her statement was free from any contradictions as well.

Listening to the both sides noted that the accused merely tried to mislead the court by shifting the burden of killing their daughter on her wife and this claim was not supported by any genuine evidence. On top of that soon after giving this argument the accused accepted that he had an argument with his wife regarding the illicit relationship she had. The court then upheld the conviction of the husband for brutally murdering his minor daughter.




The Shraddha Murder Case: The Delhi HC denies a petition for transfer of the investigation to the CBI and imposes costs


A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Attorney Joginder Tuli asking for the transfer of the investigation into the infamous Shraddha Walkar murder case from the Delhi police to the Central Bureau of Investigation was rejected by the Delhi High Court bench consisting of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad (CBI).


Aftab Poonawala was detained by Delhi police on November 11 in connection with the murder of his companion Shraddha Walkar. The accused strangled the victim after a fight between the couple in a Mehrauli rental apartment, cut her body into 35 pieces, put them in a refrigerator, and then dumped the pieces throughout the city.

Joginder Tuli, an attorney, filed a PIL alleging that the Delhi Police exposed crucial and minute aspects of the case to the public through the media. The argument emphasised that the victim’s body parts were allegedly dismembered and dumped at several locations after she was killed in Delhi. According to the Mehrauli Police Station is not staffed or equipped to conduct the investigation. Additionally, it was indicated that interference with the evidence and the witnesses in the aforementioned case occurred as a result of media coverage and undue exposure at the location of the retrieval and court proceedings.

The Delhi police are currently conducting an inquiry, and the high court ruled that the court cannot monitor this process. In addition to dismissing the plea, costs were also imposed. It further revealed that the senior police officials handling the aforementioned case have already finished 80% of the investigation. According to Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, one of the arguments against the plea was that a private party through a PIL cannot determine how an investigation should be carried out. Santosh Tripathi, the standing counsel for the Delhi government, and Attorney Arun Panwar claimed that the petitioner had done no study and that the plea had been filed without identifying any pertinent grounds, and that it thus deserved to be dismissed with high costs.

Read also:

    Exit mobile version