This post is being written with reference to the case of Amit Mavi v. State. The issue in question is presumption of a person fleeing from justice when notice under Section 41A is issued after a person has left the country.

For years together, a lot has been said about free speech and one’s freedom of expression. The debate goes on from human rights to fundamental rights.

On 7th April, 2021, the Delhi High Court passed an order that it is compulsory for a lone driver to wear a mask in his private vehicle and on the violation of the same, one is liable to pay fine.

Despite the orders of the Karnataka High Court, the State Government couldn’t implement the laws and instead chose to be inhumane.

Advocate Dr. Farrukh Khan, the founding partner of Diwan Advocates, has been recently appointed as an amicus curiae in the case of Anju Sharma v. Union of India.

While adorning the robe of an Appellate Court, the Hon'ble High Court stated that whenever a Trial Court acquits an accused and then there is an appeal filed against this acquittal, it gives rise to double presumption.