Anirud C

You can lose an election. You cannot lose the Constitution.

When a Chief Minister refuses to resign, the law does not shrug. Article 164 makes executive tenure conditional — not permanent. The S.R. Bommai judgment makes the standard clear: face the floor of the Assembly, or face dismissal. The civil service, oath-bound to the Constitution and not to any individual, falls in line.
And if all else fails? Articles 355 and 356 arm the Union with everything it needs — including central paramilitary forces — to ensure the rule of law prevails.

The Constitution does not negotiate with defiance. It outlasts it.

The Kerala HC's recent temple entry judgment (Sanil Narayanan Nampoothiri v. State of Kerala) deserves critical examination by constitutional law practitioners.

While promoting interfaith harmony is laudable, the judgment's suggestion to reconsider Rule 3(a) of the 1965 Act raises serious questions:

• Article 25's three limitations (public order, morality, health) remain undefined—particularly "morality"
• "Constitutional morality" appears nowhere in Article 25's text yet is used to override religious practices
• Similar or more restrictive practices in other faiths receive no comparable judicial scrutiny

I've written a detailed analysis examining these constitutional concerns and the implications for religious freedom across all communities.

Link in comments.

Yesterday, I was booking tickets to and from Mumbai and made a crucial error: my return flight was incorrectly booked from the new Navi Mumbai International Airport instead of Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport. The cancellation refund offered on the app was a mere INR 1160 out of a ~INR 5000 ticket, and modification wasn't an option.

I decided to call Indigo Customer Care. They informed me about the "Look In Period" policy, as per the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) Section 3, Series M, Part II, issued by the Directorate General Civil Aviation (DGCA). This mandate requires a complete refund if a flight is cancelled within 24 hours of booking, provided the flight is more than 7 days away. I am grateful to Ayush from Indigo who brought my attention to this policy.

Thanks to this policy, I received a refund of INR 4632 (after a small convenience fee).

The Takeaway for Frequent Flyers: Many customers might tacitly accept the low refund offered on the app, forfeiting their right under this DGCA circular. It’s unfortunate that airlines often necessitate a call to customer care to get a DGCA-compliant refund, rather than providing the option directly on their app.

Pro-Tip: Always check the 'Look In Period' refund policy (DGCA CAR, Section 3, Series M, Part II) before accepting a minimal app-based cancellation refund!

Did you know a bounced cheque is more than just a financial error?

In India, it’s actually a "quasi-criminal" offence. This means while the dispute is about money, the law uses criminal consequences (like potential jail time) to ensure people take their payments seriously.

If you are a business owner or an individual who has received a dishonoured cheque, time is your biggest enemy. There is a critical 60-day window you must follow to ensure you don't lose your right to legal recourse.

I’ve put together a comprehensive "Drawee’s Guide" to help you navigate Section 138 of the NI Act.
What you’ll learn:
✅ The exact timelines for sending a legal notice.
✅ What counts as a "legally enforceable debt."
✅ The penalties a drawer faces upon conviction.

Read the full guide here:
https://www.anirudc.com/post/cheque-bounce-in-india-a-drawee-s-guide-to-section-138-of-the-ni-act

Cheque Bounce in India: A Drawee's Guide to Section 138 of the NI Act Introduction: When a Bounced Cheque Becomes a Criminal OffenceOversight of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 • The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“The Act”) is a foundational piece of commercial law in India that governs specific types of financial documents used to facilitate commerce, ...