Delhi’s startup and professional community today is living through two equally disturbing truths: founders Vaibhav Chawla who feel forced to shut down functioning businesses once the criminal process is turned against them, and ordinary citizens who watch their life’s savings flow to sophisticated fraudsters while the police machinery moves at a glacial pace, if at all.  Both experiences point to one central failure—a policing culture that can be hyper‑active where there is pressure and influence, yet strangely comatose when a victim seeks nothing but protection under law. When process becomes the punishment In one set of cases, entrepreneurs narrate how a dispute that should have remained commercial is rapidly escalated into a criminal battle, with the system appearing to run on a presumption of guilt and a readiness to use coercive tools at the complainant’s bidding. The message they receive is brutal : it is not enough to build a healthy business; one must also survive a process...

Supreme Court to Decide: Should Practical Experience Be Mandatory for Judicial Service Entry? By Ganesh Mishra, Advocate, Supreme Court & Delhi High Court   Founder, Mishra & Associates   Contact: +91 9136273395 | advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com   www.advocateganeshmishra.in   107B, First Floor, Vikrant Enclave, Mayapuri, New Delhi – 110064 The Supreme Court of India is set to deliver a significant judgment on whether a minimum period of legal practice should be mandatory for entry into the judicial service at the Civil Judge (Junior Division) level. This comes after years of debate: while a practice requirement was removed in 2002 to attract fresh legal talent, many High Courts and members of the Bar now argue that practical experience is essential for judicial effectiveness. Supporters of reinstating the practice requirement believe that real courtroom exposure is crucial for developing the skills and maturity needed on the be...

As a practicing advocate at the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, I am pleased to share insights from a significant recent judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rohit Sharma Alias Raju v. State of Punjab (2025 NCPHHC 61133). This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to balancing legal rigor with constitutional protections, particularly under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.In this case, the petitioner, accused under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, for possessing a commercial quantity of Tramadol tablets, sought regular bail after nearly three years in custody. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, granted bail, emphasizing that “bail is the rule and incarceration the exception.” Key factors influencing the decision included the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal history, the prolonged custody period (2 years, 11 months, and 3 days), and the anticipated delay in trial completion, with only 3 of 16 prosecution witnesses examine...

  By Advocate Ganesh Mishra,                                Founder, Mishra and Associates,  New Delhi advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com www.advocateganeshmishra.in Mob +91-9136273395 Introduction The accession of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) to India in 1947 remains one of the most significant and debated chapters in Indian history. While official narratives have often focused on the events following the Pakistani tribal invasion, a closer look at historical records and testimonies reveals a more nuanced story-one that challenges many popular perceptions and raises important questions about political decisions at the highest level. The Maharaja’s Dilemma and Early Steps Toward India Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of J&K, faced a complex situation in the months leading up to independence. With partition violence raging and his state’s Muslim-majority demography, he initially sough...

Questioning the Naming of National Institutions It is worth reflecting on why some of India’s most prominent universities, such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), bear the names of these political leaders. The academic credentials of Jawaharlal Nehru, while respectable, were not extraordinary. Nehru studied at Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge, earning an honours degree in natural science, and later qualified as a barrister in London, passing his exams “with neither glory nor ignominy”[1][4]. His educational journey, though privileged, did not set him apart as a scholar of exceptional distinction. Indira Gandhi, despite her influential role in Indian politics, did not complete a university degree. This stands in stark contrast to many young men and women from less privileged backgrounds across India who, despite significant hardships, manage to complete their graduation and post-graduation[6][9]. Whom Should We Celebrate in Acad...

  Property disputes are common in Delhi, especially among middle-class families who have invested their life savings in real estate. Issues can arise due to unclear property titles, illegal possession, or disputes among family members. Do’s: Always verify the property title and ownership documents before purchasing. Register your property and keep all legal documents safe. Consult a lawyer before signing any property agreement. Don’ts: Don’t rely solely on verbal agreements or informal receipts. Avoid shortcuts in property registration or mutation. Without proper legal advice, you risk losing your investment or getting entangled in lengthy court battles. For expert guidance, contact Ganesh Mishra, Advocate, Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, at Mishra & Associates, Mayapuri, New Delhi.   Conclusion: Why You Need Expert Legal Advice Legal issues can have lasting financial and emotional consequences if not handled properly....

Introduction Senior Advocates in India occupy a prestigious position within the legal hierarchy. Their designation reflects exceptional legal expertise and contributions to the field. This article explores whether matters handled by Senior Advocates are inherently significant or if their involvement elevates the importance of such cases. Understanding the Role of Senior Advocates Senior Advocates are designated under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, based on their legal acumen, standing at the Bar, and contributions to jurisprudence. They are restricted from directly accepting briefs or engaging in drafting work, focusing solely on courtroom advocacy. Do Senior Advocates Handle Only Important Cases? Senior Advocates often deal with high-stakes cases, ranging from constitutional challenges to complex commercial disputes. Their designation itself implies trust in their ability to handle intricate legal issues. However, courts do not select cases based solely on their importance; ra...