Legal Blogs


Suo Moto Cognizance- Elixir or Toxin for the Judicial System of our Country

The Recent actions by the Supreme Court by taking a Suo Moto Cognizance in the case of the viral Manipur Sexual Harassment case was welcomed as a positive measure by various organizations and the citizens of the country. Following the Viral video showing two women being paraded in Manipur while entirely naked, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud ordered the Central government and the state government to inform the Supreme Court of any actions taken.


No Confidence Motion in India: Explained

In parliamentary democracies, the No Confidence Motion (NCM) concept is a critical mechanism for ensuring governmental accountability and transparency and maintaining the delicate balance between the executive and legislative branches. In India, a nation that upholds democratic principles, the NCM is significant in its political landscape. The No Confidence Motion represents a powerful tool in the hands of the opposition to voice concerns, challenge policies, and even potentially change the course of governance.This blog delves into the No Confidence Motion concept, procedure, implications, and historical relevance in the Indian context.



India had achieved independence after huge bloodshed only for the citizens of the country so that they could live happily, without any interference from outside, which is known as sovereignty. Just after three tears, on the 26th day of November 1950, India had drafted its first Constitution, with its founding fathers being Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Sir Benegal Narsing Rao, Surendra Nath Mukherjee and others. The Constitution of India has 22 parts and 395 Articles, and Part III of the Constitution is enshrined with the Fundamental Rights, ranging from Articles 12 to 35. Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India gives the freedom of speech and expression to all the citizens of India. The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Devendrappa (1998) that reasonable restrictions may have to be imposed in the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of maintaining discipline in public services, even though it may not have been mentioned as a ground in Article 19(2).