Anirud C

As advocates, we step out of law school uncertain about our future: corporate career or independent practice. One thing is common to both: the financial outcome. With responsibilities on our shoulders, we are often compelled to decline work we cannot afford to take on.

As I reflect on Independence Day, I ask myself what my responsibility is as a practising advocate. Looking back at the last three months, my pro bono cases have grown from a smaller portion of my practice to a larger one. Can I afford this financially? No. Am I disheartened? Absolutely not. I feel pride in being able to help the needy access fundamental rights otherwise denied to them.

Two cases illustrate this.

Mr. Raghav (a pseudonym) purchased land in Bengaluru after decades of savings. Years later, needing money for medical treatment, he mortgaged it through a financier, signing what he believed was a mortgage deed, for INR 30 Lakhs. His Chartered Accountant, for whom I had worked during my articleship, later noticed a demand notice from the Income Tax Department. It emerged that the land, now worth approximately INR 9 crores, had been sold for a mere INR 30 Lakhs. The document Raghav had signed hurriedly, in Kannada, was not a mortgage deed but a sale deed.

By the time Raghav came to me, the matter had already been through more than one advocate without meaningful progress. He came to me with tears in his eyes. A sixty year old tea seller ought not to be treated this way. I have since taken on his trial court and High Court matters pro bono, as no one else was willing to fight for him without fee. Justice has evaded him for too long, but he feels hopeful again.

The agency managing our compound's security guards changed recently. One afternoon in late July, a guard approached me, hesitant and avoiding eye contact, and told me they had not received their June salary. I asked for a list of the guards and amounts owed, and advised him on approaching the new agency, assuring him I would help further, at no charge, if needed. He gently declined. I told him they were protecting us, and this was the least I could do.

The agency began responding, and the guards agreed to wait. By 13th August, one guard worried the cheque might be delayed past the weekend. I told him we still had a day to wait. The payment came through the next evening.

As advocates, we must embody the qualities of Lord Yama and Lord Shani, remaining just and righteous, ensuring justice stays accessible. Compassion of spirit is greater when the wallet is light. My Parama Guru, Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, says: "Work is worship, and duty is God." If we stand for dharma irrespective of conditions, dharma will protect us in turn.

As Bhagwan Ram says, Mother and Motherland are verily greater than the heavens.

Happy Independence Day to my fellow Bharatiyas!

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, ...

Well written. We need to do more to protect our intellectual property.

The GI title took me back to my classroom in Christ University where we debated whether the GI for Rasgulla was rightfully granted to Orissa or should it have been with Bengal.

The article by Economic Times beautifully concludes by stating the stark difference in IP registrations between France and India. Also, the expenditure incurred by India consequent to IP enforcement is also brought out very well. The inflow, in contrast, is a paltry amount. We need to do better especially in the light of the push for Make in India and Atmanirbhar Bharat.

Happy Onam from us to you ❤️

There is an author in all of us. Register now to become an author! DM for details