Know Your Rights!!

The Delhi High Court has recently recognised the “Right to be Forgotten” (RTBF) as part of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, especially in the context of online court records and search engines. In simple terms, it means that in certain situations, people can ask for their names and personal details to stop showing up in name-based internet searches related to old court cases. The Court was hearing petitions from people whose names kept appearing online in connection with past cases – criminal matters, matrimonial disputes, and other litigation – even though the cases were over, settled, or decided in their favour. The petitioners said that because of search engines and legal databases, those old cases were still affecting their reputation, jobs, and personal lives. The Court laid down a simple, two-fold framework: De-indexing: Search engines and legal databases can be directed to remove specific links from name-based search resu...

The Supreme Court judgment in  Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar  (2026 INSC 73) , delivered on January 20, 2026, which highlights the serious consequences of perjury in legal proceedings. The case originally started as a divorce, but perjury (lying under oath) became the most important issue. After marrying in 2012, the couple separated just 65 days later. This led to a massive legal battle with more than 40 different lawsuits filed in Delhi, Lucknow, and Ghaziabad. These cases covered everything from demands for financial support (maintenance) to domestic violence and criminal charges. While the main matter and other cases were eventually dismissed, the legal trouble regarding the false statements made in court on oath continued. The husband accused the wife of perjury in her affidavits containing false financial details and concealed facts, prompting applications under Section 340 CrPC and Section 379 r/w 215 BNSS. The Court independently verified case lists from High Courts and...

Have you ever filled out a nomination form at your bank and wondered, "What's this successive or simultaneous nomination, and which one should I choose?" You're not alone. The RBI's latest rules, the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 2025, let depositors name up to 4 individuals for FDs and RDs—either successively or simultaneously—to streamline inheritance. Effective November 1, 2025, these apply to deposits (with both options), while lockers and safe custody only successive option. Picture this: You've locked away an FD for your family's future. But what if you're gone—who gets it, hassle-free? Let's understand with a quick example. Say you're Ashok, 55, with a ₹10 lakh FD. You name your wife Mia as the successive nominee #1, daughter Pooja as #2, and son Shiv as #3. Successive nomination : Like a relay race. If Mia is alive, she becomes the  owner -  full control, interest, everything. If not, it passes to Pooja, then Shiv. C...

The Supreme Court, in Snidha Mehra vs Union of India (WRIT PETITION 732/2020 decided on 19.11.2025) , did not strike down section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It refused to rule on the constitutional validity of that clause in this PIL (public interest litigation) and left the question open for a future case brought by directly affected parties. The petition was filed by a young woman lawyer who argued that where a married Hindu woman dies without a will, and leaves behind no husband or children, it is unfair that her property first goes to the “heirs of the husband” before her own parents. She pointed out that this is especially harsh when the woman’s property is self-acquired and her parents, who educated and supported her, are pushed down in the queue. The Court reproduced the existing legal position and kept it intact. In plain terms, when a Hindu woman dies intestate (without a will), her property goes in this order: §   First – to her children (including child...

  The Bombay High Court has struck down the Registrar’s orders against Aether Co‑operative Housing Society (WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.19688 OF 2025, decided on 10.12.2025) , holding that the Co-operative Registrar simply did not have the legal power to decide a dispute about how maintenance was calculated and recovered from members.   What started the dispute? Some flat owner members in the Society went to the Deputy Registrar and complained that the Society had raised maintenance bills in a way that went against its own bye‑laws. On that basis, they asked for a declaration that the Society could not recover those disputed maintenance amounts from them.   What the Registrar did? Acting on this complaint of some members, the Deputy Registrar used Section 154B‑27 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, along with Model Bye‑law 174 and ordered the Society to refund the maintenance collected from May 2022 and issue fresh, revised bills. Being aggrieved by this order,...

Let's talk some family drama—but not the kind you see at weddings!! This one’s about land, family promises, a Will, and a whole lot of back-and-forth between the 3 siblings who just couldn’t agree on who owns what!   Rajammal believed she had a right to half of a plot of land because her father had left a Will in her favour. However, her brother, Munuswamy, was not keen on this claim by his sister. He said he had been enjoying the western portion, and Govindrajan, his brother, had been enjoying the eastern portion of the house built on the land for years, not as a tenant but as a “co-owner,”  and that things had been settled long ago between the two brothers. You’d think a family could sort these things out at some Panchayat or with some elder giving advice, but nope—it went all the way to the Supreme Court! A suit was filed by Rajammal against Munuswamy, her brother, for injunction simpliciter, one, to restrain alienation or encumbrance of the suit property and the other ...

If a bank returns a cheque for insufficient funds, the law presumes the cheque was given to pay a real debt once the signature is admitted, and it is up to the issuer to prove otherwise with real evidence, not guesses. In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court restored a conviction that a High Court had wrongly overturned and introduced new, practical steps to expedite cheque-bounce cases nationwide, with effect from 01.11.2025. Let's examine the case of the appellant-complainant, Sanjabij Tari, who advanced a friendly loan of ₹6,00,000 to the respondent, Kishore S. Borcar, supported by credible testimony that to oblige his friend/Respondent, the appellant-complainant had arranged money from his father, who was a cloth merchant having two shops and even went to the extent of parting with a portion of the loan amount which he himself had borrowed from a financial institution. The respondent issued a cheque which was dishonoured by the bank. The trial and sessions courts convicted t...

Most of us, even bankers for that matter, overlook that the law allows endorsing cheques for part-payments. A cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( “The Act” ) fails if the full cheque amount is not actually due because part of the loan has already been repaid and that part-payment is not endorsed on the cheque. The cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date it is presented. Let’s take a look at a simple interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, Criminal Appeal No. 1497 of 2022 (SC) . The Facts: A lender claimed a relative had borrowed Rs. 20 lakhs and gave a cheque for that amount, which later bounced for insufficient funds. The borrower showed that he had already paid Rs. 4,09,315 towards that loan before the cheque was presented. The trial court and the High Court found these part-payments proved, and the Supreme Court examined whether Section 138 applied in such...

The Supreme Court has ruled that  secretly recorded phone conversations between spouses can be used as evidence in matrimonial disputes. The judgment in  Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025 INSC 829) , delivered on  July 14, 2025 , has finally settled years of confusion among Indian courts. Vibhor Garg and Neha married in 2009 but their relationship fell apart. When Vibhor filed for divorce in 2017, he had secret phone recordings of conversations with his wife from 2010 and 2016. When he tried to use these as evidence, Neha objected, saying it violated her  right to privacy. The Punjab & Haryana High Court agreed with her and blocked the recordings. The Supreme Court, led by  Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma , disagreed completely. They ruled that privacy is  not absolute  and must be balanced against the right to a fair trial. The judgment shows how confused courts were before this decision: Courts That Allowed Re...