CourtFlix, Chandigarh (2026)

17/08/2026

Allahabad High Court takes suo motu cognizance after Hamirpur students walk 5 km protesting the lack of a road to their school.

Schoolchildren in Uttar Pradesh’s Hamirpur district reportedly walked around 5 km along with their parents to highlight the absence of a proper road to their school. Taking note of their difficulties, the Allahabad High Court initiated suo motu proceedings over the issue, bringing attention to the need for basic and safe access to education.

RoadConnectivity News

15/08/2026

Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra has issued an apology to law students following the controversy surrounding the NALSAR University of Law convocation. The row sparked widespread discussion within the legal and student communities, prompting concerns over the remarks and conduct associated with the event. Mishra’s apology comes amid growing calls for greater sensitivity, dignity and respect toward students at academic institutions, particularly during milestone occasions such as convocation ceremonies.

15/08/2026

India became independent in 1947—but the legal system could not simply be switched off overnight. 🇮🇳⚖️

Many laws enacted during British rule continued to operate after Independence. This continuity was ultimately protected by Article 372 of the Constitution, which kept pre-Constitution laws in force until they were altered, repealed or amended by a competent authority. The objective was practical: prevent a legal vacuum while the Republic developed its own constitutional and legislative framework.

That is why major colonial-era statutes—including the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Indian Contract Act, 1872; Police Act, 1861; and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—continued to influence Indian law long after the British left.

But continuity did not mean that these laws remained frozen in their colonial form. Over the decades, Parliament amended, repealed and replaced numerous statutes, while Indian courts interpreted existing laws through the rights and principles of the Constitution.

A major milestone arrived on 1 July 2024, when three new criminal laws came into force: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced the IPC, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replaced the CrPC, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) replaced the Indian Evidence Act.

The result is a layered legal system: one that inherited substantial colonial-era architecture but has been reshaped for decades through India's Constitution, Parliament and judiciary.

Independence changed who governed India. Building an Indian legal framework has been a much longer process.

14/08/2026

15.08.1947 🇮🇳

The day India stopped being someone else’s sentence and started writing its own.

Independence was not simply the end of colonial rule. It was the beginning of an extraordinary experiment: a nation of immense diversity choosing to build, debate, vote, create, question, dream and move forward together.

From the crowds that witnessed the birth of a free nation in 1947 to the India of today, our story has been written across generations.

In our Constitution.
In our institutions.
In our railways, cities and villages.
In science and space.
In art, culture and enterprise.
And most importantly, in the lives of more than a billion people who continue to shape what India becomes next.

Freedom gave us the right to write our own story.

What we write with that freedom remains our responsibility.

79 years later, the sentence is still unfinished.

Happy Independence Day, India. 🇮🇳

Here’s to the freedom we inherited, the democracy we protect, and the India we continue to write together.

Jai Hind. 🇮🇳

14/08/2026

What happens when the Chairman of the Bar Council of India himself is held guilty of contempt of court?

The V. C. Mishra episode became an important chapter in Indian legal history not only because of the advocate’s conduct in court, but because it raised a deeper constitutional question about the limits of the Supreme Court’s powers.

In V. C. Mishra, In re (1995), the Supreme Court found senior advocate and then-BCI Chairman V. C. Mishra guilty of criminal contempt following his conduct toward a presiding judge. The Court concluded that his language and behaviour were intended to threaten, overawe and overbear the court. Along with punishment for contempt, the Supreme Court also directed that he be suspended from practising as an advocate for a period, while the sentence of imprisonment was kept suspended.

But that raised a fundamental question: Can the Supreme Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, suspend an advocate’s licence to practise?

The issue was reconsidered by a Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998). The Court clarified that its constitutional power to punish for contempt under Article 129 is distinct from the statutory disciplinary framework governing advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961.

It held that Article 142 could not be used to assume disciplinary powers specifically entrusted by law to the Bar Councils. While courts retain the authority to punish contempt and regulate proceedings before them, suspension or removal of an advocate’s licence as professional discipline must follow the mechanism established under the Advocates Act.

The cases remain significant for defining the boundary between two important powers: protecting the authority of courts through contempt jurisdiction and regulating the professional status of advocates through statutory disciplinary bodies.

( V. C. Mishra, Supreme Court of India, Contempt of Court, Criminal Contempt, Bar Council of India, Advocates Act 1961, Article 129, Article 142, Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, Professional Misconduct )

14/08/2026

In a significant development in the India’s Got Latent controversy, the Supreme Court has quashed all FIRs against comedian Samay Raina and four others over allegedly insensitive remarks concerning persons with disabilities.

The case had drawn nationwide attention and raised questions around freedom of expression, responsible comedy and the dignity of persons with disabilities. The proceedings followed allegations that jokes and comments made by the comedians demeaned persons with disabilities, including those affected by rare genetic disorders.

While granting relief from the criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court took note of the subsequent steps taken by the comedians in connection with its directions, including efforts aimed at raising awareness and supporting initiatives concerning persons with disabilities. The development effectively brings the criminal proceedings arising from the controversy to an end.

The case has also underscored a larger conversation about the influence of online creators and the responsibility that comes with reaching millions of viewers, particularly when humour involves vulnerable or marginalised communities.

14/08/2026

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI), seeking its response to a plea filed by NALSAR University of Law challenging two BCI circulars issued yesterday that triggered significant backlash over their implications for student protests and campus activities.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made strong observations on the right of students to raise their voices lawfully, questioning the BCI’s intervention in the matter.

“BCI has nothing to do with this. We are with you. Students have written a letter to me. It's a dialogue between students and me. Who are they to unnecessarily issue a circular?” the CJI observed.

Recalling his own student years, the CJI added: “When I was in college, I was actively involved in student activities. Sometimes, even if they are saying the wrong thing, if they are lawfully raising their voice, it must be allowed.”

The Court has agreed to hear the plea and sought the BCI’s response. The matter was mentioned before the Bench by Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar on behalf of NALSAR.

The proceedings put the spotlight on the space available for student expression and peaceful protest within law universities, and the extent to which regulatory bodies can intervene in such activities.

13/08/2026

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has reversed its earlier direction that temporarily barred all 2026 law graduates of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, from enrolling as advocates with State Bar Councils. The U-turn came within hours of the initial order and amid widespread criticism of the decision.

The controversy arose over a reported student campaign opposing a proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at NALSAR’s 2026 convocation. In its initial communication on August 13, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed State Bar Councils to defer enrolment of the entire graduating batch while seeking a factual report from NALSAR on those involved in initiating and coordinating the campaign.

Hours later, the BCI modified the direction, observing that the “vast majority” of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates were innocent and should not face consequences for actions in which they had no role. The revised decision allows all 2026 graduates to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice, restoring their path to entering legal practice.

The matter, however, has not completely ended. The BCI has sought an authenticated factual report from the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor within three days, asking the university to identify, on the basis of verifiable material, individuals involved in initiating, drafting, circulating or coordinating the campaign, including any involvement by faculty members, alumni or outsiders. The Council has indicated that it will consider further action after receiving the report.

The rapid reversal has turned the episode into a significant debate over student expression, collective punishment and the regulatory powers of the BCI, while providing immediate relief to NALSAR graduates whose enrolment as advocates had briefly been placed in uncertainty.

13/08/2026

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any graduate of NALSAR University of Law from the 2026 batch as an advocate until further orders.

The direction comes amid controversy surrounding a campaign over Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s participation in NALSAR’s convocation.

BCI has sought a detailed report identifying those allegedly behind the campaign and the circumstances surrounding it. The Council is expected to consider the matter and take a final decision on August 19, 2026.

The development could have immediate implications for graduating students seeking enrolment with State Bar Councils and entry into legal practice.

( NALSAR, Bar Council of India, BCI, CJI Surya Kant, State Bar Councils, Advocate Enrolment, NALSAR Convocation, Law Graduates, Legal Education )

CourtFlix

17/08/2026

15/08/2026

15/08/2026

14/08/2026

14/08/2026

14/08/2026

14/08/2026

13/08/2026

13/08/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Organization

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request