Kalam

🚶⚖️ "The Right to Walk on a Demarcated Footpath is a Fundamental Right."

In a landmark ruling delivered on 19 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to walk safely on demarcated footpaths forms an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further observed that pedestrian rights must take precedence over vehicular movement and emphasized the need for safe, accessible, and obstruction-free footpaths.

The Court's reasoning traces back to Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545, where the Supreme Court recognized that footpaths are meant for pedestrian use and that the rights of pedestrians deserve constitutional protection.

This judgment is a reminder that constitutional rights are not confined to courtrooms—they exist on every street, every crossing, and every footpath we use daily.

📖 Article 21 | 🚶 Pedestrian Rights | ⚖️ Supreme Court of India

📚⚖️ B.A. LL.B. Classes for Calcutta University Students ⚖️📚

Ready to strengthen your legal concepts and excel in university examinations?

✅ Online & Offline Classes
✅ Exam-Oriented PDF Notes
✅ Bare Act-Based Explanations
✅ Recorded Lectures for Revision
✅ Regular Assessments & Mock Tests
✅ Dedicated Doubt-Clearing Sessions
✅ Important Questions & Semester Guidance

🎯 Classes for 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th & 10th Semester Students

🚀 New Batch Starts on Saturday, 13th June 2026

Limited seats available. Enrol now and prepare with a structured, result-oriented approach.

📞 Contact: 086970 60903

The Supreme Court and the Bar Council of India have made it clear that advocates cannot escape professional liability by blaming technology for

AI-generated fake citations, fabricated quotations, or non-existent judgments. The duty to verify every authority placed before a court remains non-delegable.

The integrity of the justice system depends on accuracy, diligence, and professional ethics. Every citation must be verified. Every precedent must be authentic.

Technology may assist legal practice, but responsibility always rests with the advocate. ⚖️📚

⚖️ A Will is meant to reflect the wishes of the testator — not the expectations of heirs.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court in Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy (2026 INSC 521) clarified that mere exclusion of natural heirs does not automatically make a Will suspicious. Unless there are genuine suspicious circumstances affecting ex*****on or authenticity, testamentary freedom prevails. 🖋️📜

Natural succession may be emotional, but testamentary succession is legal.

📍 In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay the Price v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2026 INSC 506

🗓️ Supreme Court Judgment: 19th May 2026
“Right to life under Article 21 includes the right to move freely without fear of dog bites.” — Supreme Court

In a landmark ruling on the stray dog crisis, the Supreme Court held that public safety cannot be compromised in the name of animal welfare.

⚖️ Key Findings:
• Citizens have a right to safe public spaces.
• States cannot remain silent spectators to rising dog-bite incidents.
• Schools, hospitals and public places must remain safe.
• Aggressive, rabid or incurably ill stray dogs may be euthanised as per law.
• Authorities must strengthen ABC programmes, anti-rabies measures and monitoring systems.

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta & Justice N.V. Anjaria.

⚖️ A stronger judiciary for a stronger democracy 🇮🇳

In a major step toward reducing case pendency and improving access to justice, the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court of India has now been increased to 38 judges (including the Chief Justice of India).

With rising litigation and growing constitutional responsibilities, this move is expected to enhance judicial efficiency, faster hearings, and timely justice delivery for millions. 📚⚖️

From 34 to 38 — the apex court grows with the nation’s legal needs. 🇮🇳

Former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee yesterday appeared at Calcutta High Court wearing a lawyer’s gown during proceedings connected to the Kasba law college matter, leading to an emotional and politically charged atmosphere inside the courtroom. The appearance immediately sparked intense debate among legal professionals and political observers over courtroom decorum, advocate ethics, and whether a person not actively enrolled in legal practice should appear in advocate attire before the court.

Following the controversy, the Bar Council of India has reportedly sought details regarding her legal practice status after the High Court appearance. What began as an emotional courtroom moment has now turned into a nationwide legal and constitutional discussion. ⚖️