Do you think that constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balance’? Explain.
This question is available to read here. The practice button generates a fresh question from the same paper. Here, practise an answer plan in keywords. Choose your timer on the next screen. Feedback uses our common 15-point practice rubric, rather than the paper’s original mark allocation.
On September 22, 2026, the Kerala High Court granted bail to the Managing Director of Reporter TV, Anto Augustine, in relation to a case concerning the alleged possession of alcohol. The decision, delivered by Justice Kauser Edappagath, followed an appeal filed by the petitioner against an order previously passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sulthan Bathery. This legal development highlights the critical role of appellate courts in reviewing lower court directives, particularly in matters involving individual liberty and procedural adherence. The ruling underscores the judiciary's responsibility to balance investigative requirements with the fundamental rights of individuals, serving as a reminder of the established constitutional principles governing detention and the grant of bail in the Indian legal system.
On September 25, 2026, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court delivered a significant ruling in the long-standing Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) money laundering case, dismissing the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) plea to add fresh charges against former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah. Justice Sanjay Parihar, presiding over the matter, stated that the material presently available did not provide sufficient grounds to justify the inclusion of additional charges under Sections 411 and 424 of the Ranbir Penal Code. This judicial intervention marks a pivotal moment in a case that has been under scrutiny for over a decade, emphasizing the requirement for rigorous evidence when central agencies seek to escalate proceedings.
The Supreme Court of India recently issued a revised order concerning the detention of a Delhi University student under the National Security Act (NSA). While the initial order appeared to grant a comprehensive stay on an Allahabad High Court judgment that had quashed the student's detention, the corrected judicial directive clarifies the scope of this intervention. The stay is now restricted exclusively to specific paragraphs of the High Court’s ruling that imposed strictures and a ₹5 lakh penalty on the concerned official, Medha Roopam. Crucially, the substantive relief granted by the High Court—the quashing of the detention order itself—remains intact. This development underscores the judiciary’s ongoing struggle to maintain a delicate equilibrium between state security prerogatives and the protection of fundamental rights, while simultaneously addressing the mechanisms of administrative accountability for errant state action.