INDIA

Sunil Ambalavelil, Chairman of Kaden Boriss and a distinguished Indian corporate lawyer, said:

“The BRICS bloc comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, challenges outdated, Western-led governance models. It's growing influence signals a shift towards a more multipolar world order, one that respects sovereignty, diversity, and regional priorities.” 

Key Takeaways:

• India calls for restructuring global governance to reflect modern economic and political dynamics.

• Modi advocates greater Global South representation in global institutions.

• Push for UNSC, WTO, and financial institution reforms is central to India’s foreign policy agenda.

• The appeal reflects a broader trend of developing nations asserting their global roles.

For any enquiries or information, contact info@thelawreporters.com or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow  The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI171, a Boeing 787‑8 Dreamliner with 242 people on board, crashed into a medical college hostel in Ahmedabad mere minutes after takeoff, claiming the lives of more than 240 individuals, including former Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani. The sole survivor, British‑Indian national Ramesh Viswashkumar, described a “loud noise” just before the tragedy.

This disaster constitutes the first fatal crash of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner and India's most catastrophic aviation accident in over a decade.

Crash Details & Casualties

The aircraft departed at 1:39 PM IST and reached approximately 625 ft before issuing a Mayday call and losing communication. It collided with the B.J. Medical College hostel, leading to a massive fire that claimed lives both onboard and on the ground—official agencies confirmed 28 additional ground fatalities, bringing the total to at least 269 dead.

Rescue & Investigation Efforts

Emergency services—including NDRF, local fire brigades, and police teams—promptly secured the site, recovering debris and at least one of the aircraft’s black boxes. The Airports Authority of India has resumed limited services following an initial suspension.

Legal & Regulatory Framework

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has convened an investigation panel following ICAO Annexe 13. Supported by international authorities—including the UK AAIB, U.S. NTSB, and Boeing—the probe will examine:

• Flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder

• Maintenance records and aircraft history

• Pilot credentials and air traffic control communications

• Emergency response procedures

The Dreamliner’s relatively uneventful safety record until now makes the crash particularly legally significant.

Liability & Compensation Considerations

Under the Montreal Convention, Air India is strictly liable for proven passenger injury or death up to approximately US $170,000, plus additional amounts for unproven claims. Beyond that, higher compensation may be awarded if Air India or Boeing is found negligent.

Potential legal liabilities include:

• Design or manufacturing defects (e.g., Boeing or engine maker GE Aerospace)

• Operational errors (e.g., pilot or ATC fault)

• Maintenance lapses at Air India’s MRO units

Civil suits could arise in India, the U.K., or the U.S., depending on passenger nationalities and claim jurisdictions.

Expert Insight

Sunil Ambalavelil, Chairman of Kaden Boriss and a prominent Indian corporate and commercial lawyer, including aviation, commented:

• “This tragedy underscores the multifaceted complexity of cross-jurisdictional aviation law. With victims from India, the U.K., Portugal, and Canada, legal recourse may involve up to three different national systems.”

• “Investigators must prioritise transparency and preserve black box data. Airlines and manufacturers also face potential liability spanning strict liability to fault-based claims, particularly if design, maintenance, or operational failures are identified.”

Key Takeaways

• Over 240 fatalities confirmed; only one survivor amid devastating impact on a college hostel

• First fatal crash of the Dreamliner model; India’s deadliest air disaster in recent history

• DGCA-led investigation with international cooperation following ICAO Annexe 13 standards

• The Montreal Convention ensures automatic compensation, with further liabilities hinging on fault

• Cross-border legal complexities involve Air India, Boeing, GE Aerospace, and multiple jurisdictions

For any enquiries or information, contact info@thelawreporters.com or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels

An Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner operating as Flight AI171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, carrying 242 people, crashed into a residential area near Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport shortly after takeoff on June 12, 2025. No fatalities have been confirmed.

Crash Timeline and Initial Details

The aircraft departed at approximately 13:38 IST, reached an altitude of about 625 feet, then transmitted a Mayday call before contact was lost. It came down in Meghani Nagar, close to the airport perimeter, triggering a fireball and thick smoke that was visible across the area.

Pictures and videos captured debris engulfed in flames, and rescue operations were underway. Emergency teams—including fire services, ambulances, NDRF units, and airport rescue personnel—immediately responded and transported injured individuals to hospitals.

Passenger Profile and Official Response

• According to the reports, there were 232 passengers and 12 crew members, including 10 cabin crew and 2 pilots.

• Among passengers were 169 Indian nationals, 53 British, 7 Portuguese, and 1 Canadian.

• Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Gujarat CM Bhupendra Patel, and Civil Aviation Minister Rammohan Naidu have expressed shock and committed all necessary support to rescue operations.

Investigations Underway

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has launched a formal probe, supported by a technical team from Boeing. Emphasis is on flight data, maintenance history, pilot communications, and crew experience—Captain Sumeet Sabharwal had over 8,200 flight hours, while the co-pilot had approximately 1,100 hours.

Aviation and Legal Implications

• First Boeing 787 plane crash since its introduction in 2011, raising fresh safety questions.

• Legal review may cover liability evaluations involving Air India, Boeing, maintenance providers, and airport services.

• Flight insurance policies and compensation claims will be central, especially if losses or fatalities are confirmed.

• Criminal negligence or regulatory violations could lead to enforcement action under Indian civil aviation law.

Support and Compensation

Air India Chairman Natarajan Chandrasekaran has expressed condolences, assured assistance to families, and confirmed activation of a central emergency centre. If casualties are confirmed, Indian law provides for statutory compensation and potential punitive damages in case of proven negligence.

What Legal Experts Say

Sunil Ambalavelil,  Chairman of Kaden Boriss and a prominent Indian corporate and commercial lawyer, commented on the pivotal airline disaster:

• "Aviation incidents of this magnitude require immediate and multi-layered legal, regulatory, and forensic responses.”

• “In the wake of rising global aviation incidents, regulatory bodies must tighten compliance. Airlines must now treat preventive legal due diligence as a strategic necessity, not a procedural afterthought.” 

Key Takeaways

• A Boeing 787 Dreamliner carrying 242 individuals crashed in a residential area near Ahmedabad airport minutes after takeoff.

• Rescue teams responded quickly; casualties remain unconfirmed.

• The DGCA and Boeing have initiated a technical investigation.

• Legal implications may involve liability, insurance claims, and regulatory scrutiny.

• Next updates expected on causes, casualty identification, and investigative findings.

Representatives from the International Law Institute welcomed the partnership as a step forward in their mission to support legal systems worldwide through education and technical assistance.

“India is a growing legal power, and we look forward to deepening our engagement with law schools like DA-IICT that are investing in global legal leadership,” said Kim Phan, Executive Director of ILI.

About the Institutions

The International Law Institute, based in Washington DC, was established in 1955 and serves as an independent, non-profit institute focused on promoting good governance and the rule of law in developing economies. Its training programs attract professionals from over 180 countries and cover subjects including legislative drafting, anti-corruption law, investment arbitration, and international commercial transactions.

The School of Law at DA-IICT, launched in 2021, is a part of the renowned Dhirubhai Ambani Institute in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, and is among the few technology-integrated law schools in India. With a vision to bridge the gap between law, policy, and technology, the school offers an integrated B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) programs and emphasises digital governance, cyber law, and AI in law.

Implications for Indian Legal Education

The MoU reflects a broader trend of Indian law schools seeking strategic tie-ups with global institutions to internationalise their curricula and offer students a multicultural legal perspective. Legal education in India is evolving rapidly, with the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the University Grants Commission (UGC) encouraging cross-border cooperation and academic exchange.

According to the India Skills Report 2024, employers in the legal sector are increasingly prioritising international exposure, cross-border transaction familiarity, and tech-savvy legal professionals.

This partnership also positions DA-IICT as a pioneer in integrating STEM and law education, a model seen in premier institutions like Stanford Law School and the University of Oxford’s Law and Technology Initiative.

Expert Insight

Sunil Ambalavelil, Chairman of Kaden Boriss and a globally reputed Indian legal advisor based in the UAE, welcomed the development:

• “Such partnerships are the future of legal education. They enable students to understand the international dimensions of law and help develop a global legal mindset.”

• “With legal practice becoming increasingly cross-jurisdictional, exposure to institutions like ILI will give Indian law graduates a competitive edge on the world stage.”

Looking Ahead

The MoU is expected to result in the first student and faculty exchange programs beginning in early 2026, with workshops and webinars commencing as early as the upcoming semester. Both institutions have committed to publishing joint research papers and hosting annual conferences on global legal challenges.

The agreement is not just a symbol of international cooperation; it sets a benchmark for academic diplomacy and the globalisation of Indian legal education.

Facing legal scrutiny and public backlash, the Kerala State Government has defended its recent court fee hike, asserting before the Kerala High Court that the revision was a necessary fiscal step amid rising inflation, a depreciating rupee, and an increasing burden on the judicial infrastructure.

The court fee revision, which came into effect in early 2025, has sparked multiple petitions challenging its legality and proportionality. Petitioners, including lawyers' associations and public interest groups, argue that the hike imposes an unreasonable burden on litigants and undermines access to justice. However, the government maintains that the increase was both data-driven and constitutionally sound.

Economic Rationale Behind the Hike

Appearing before a division bench of the Kerala High Court, the state counsel argued that the court fee adjustment was made under the recommendations of an expert committee constituted in 2023. The committee evaluated historical data, inflationary trends, and the impact of a weakening Indian rupee on the state’s ability to sustain judicial expenses.

According to government records, Kerala's annual expenditure on judiciary-related infrastructure and salaries has increased by nearly 70% over the last decade, while court fee collections have remained relatively stagnant.

“In real terms, due to inflation and the falling value of the rupee, the existing fee structure—last revised in 2010—was severely outdated and incapable of supporting even basic court operations,” said a senior officer from the State Law Department.

Public Interest vs. Fiscal Sustainability

The petitions argue that the court fee hike violates Article 39A of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equal access to justice. Some petitioners assert that for low-income litigants, especially in civil disputes and land matters, the revised fees make litigation financially prohibitive.

However, the State rebutted this claim, stating that pro bono legal services, Legal Services Authorities, and fee waivers for economically disadvantaged litigants remain in place and unaffected by the revision.

The government further cited a report from the Finance Commission of India, noting that only 0.07% of Kerala's GDP is currently allocated to the judiciary, making self-sustaining revenue models through court fees a crucial necessity.

Comparative Legal Standpoint

Legal experts point out that Kerala is not alone in revising court fees. States like Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka have implemented similar upward revisions in recent years, tying court fee structures to consumer price indices and economic growth rates.

Kerala High Court’s Interim Observations

While hearing the batch of petitions, the Kerala High Court noted that access to justice is a constitutional mandate, but also acknowledged the financial constraints of running a modern judiciary. The bench has not granted a stay on the fee revision, but it has sought further data from the government on the methodology used for calculating the hike.

“We will not allow judicial functioning to be commodified, nor will we ignore the economic realities of maintaining a robust court system,” observed the bench.

The court directed the state to submit a comprehensive affidavit detailing fee band changes, exemptions for marginalised groups, and whether any sunset clauses or revaluation mechanisms are in place for future revisions.

Expert Insight

Sunil Ambalavelil, Chairman of Kaden Boriss and a seasoned Indian lawyer, shared his perspective on the issue:

“Court fee hikes are a global phenomenon, especially in economies facing inflationary pressures and public sector funding deficits. The key lies in maintaining proportionality—ensuring that fees align with service delivery without obstructing justice.”

Awaiting Final Verdict

The Kerala High Court is expected to hear final arguments in the coming weeks. Legal observers believe the outcome could set an important precedent for how states balance judicial access and fiscal autonomy, especially in the post-pandemic economic landscape.

For now, litigants, legal professionals, and policymakers await clarity on whether the 2025 court fee revision will withstand constitutional scrutiny or require legislative recalibration.

India’s long-awaited move to liberalise its legal market by allowing foreign law firms and lawyers limited access has encountered criticism and operational uncertainty, with experts pointing to the lack of clarity in the Bar Council of India (BCI)’s rules. 

The updated framework, introduced in March 2023, was meant to herald a new era of cross-border legal cooperation. However, more than a year later, lawyers and industry observers say ambiguity in the rules is delaying market entry and dampening enthusiasm among global law firms.

BCI Rules: What They Allow and Restrict?

Under the BCI’s amended regulations, foreign law firms and lawyers are permitted to practice non-litigious legal work in India on a reciprocal basis. This includes advising on international legal issues, arbitration, joint ventures, and mergers and acquisitions involving foreign law or international law components.

However, foreign lawyers cannot appear before Indian courts, draft legal pleadings, or engage in conveyancing work. While the regulations offer a pathway for foreign entities to establish a presence in India through registration, the actual process is fraught with legal grey zones.

Critics argue that the BCI has yet to issue clear procedural guidelines regarding registration timelines, regulatory oversight, and coordination with Indian law firms.

Foreign Firms Express Caution

Several prominent UK and US-based law firms—previously optimistic about entering India’s lucrative legal market—have reportedly adopted a wait-and-watch approach. Despite India being one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, law firms are wary of investing resources into a regulatory regime that remains vague.

Industry analysts have also flagged the absence of clear enforcement mechanisms, as well as inadequate clarity on permissible work areas for foreign entities.

Concerns from the Indian Legal Fraternity

Multiple Indian lawyers and bar associations have voiced opposition to the BCI’s liberalisation push, particularly around the lack of protective safeguards for domestic legal professionals.

They argue that the influx of foreign law firms—especially those with deep pockets and strong global networks—could erode the competitiveness of small and mid-sized Indian law firms. Critics also fear brain drain, where top Indian legal talent may be lured away by international firms offering higher pay and prestige.

The All India Lawyers' Forum and Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) have both expressed that the current rules fail to ensure equitable growth and preserve the Indian legal ecosystem.

Statutory and Constitutional Concerns

From a constitutional standpoint, legal experts argue that the BCI may have exceeded its delegated authority by unilaterally drafting rules that could significantly alter the practice of law in India, traditionally a domain protected under Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Moreover, there is growing concern that any conflict or misinterpretation could invite legal challenges in Indian courts, leading to prolonged litigation and further uncertainty for foreign entrants.

Comparative Global Models

India’s cautious approach stands in contrast to other Asian jurisdictions. For example, Singapore and Hong Kong have well-established regulatory frameworks allowing foreign law firms to operate in a limited capacity while ensuring strong domestic oversight.

In these markets, clear licensing structures, collaboration models, and joint ventures have fostered balanced liberalisation. India’s challenge lies in evolving a model that respects its sovereign legal traditions while adapting to the realities of global legal practice.

Expert Commentary

Sunil Ambalavelil, Chairman of Kaden Boriss and a distinguished Indian international lawyer, offered a global legal perspective on the issue:

“In the context of globalisation, the current BCI framework needs greater precision, transparency, and institutional backing to attract serious participation from foreign law firms. Without legal certainty, no responsible firm will venture into a market as complex as India’s.”

Ambalavelil, who has advised multinational companies and regulatory bodies in the Middle East and Asia, emphasised the need for reciprocity and capacity building for Indian lawyers to benefit from liberalisation rather than be sidelined by it.

What Lies Ahead?

In response to criticism, the BCI has indicated it may consider revising the rules and issuing detailed implementation guidelines. However, no timeline has been shared.

Until then, foreign firms remain hesitant, and Indian lawyers continue to debate the long-term implications of market liberalisation. In the absence of clearer policies, India risks missing out on international legal collaboration, talent exchange, and the growth of cross-border practices.

For now, the doors may be open, but many are still waiting on the threshold.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by advocate R. Karmegam, who challenged the Bar Council of India's (BCI) decision to suspend him from legal practice for seven years. The suspension followed an incident where Karmegam allegedly drove his car into a hotel owned by the complainant in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. 

Initially, the BCI had imposed a one-year suspension on Karmegam. However, the complainant sought a review, leading the BCI to enhance the suspension to seven years in April 2025. The Disciplinary Committee of the BCI stated that while removing Karmegam from the roll of advocates would be too harsh, a seven-year suspension was appropriate to serve the interest of justice. 

Supreme Court's Observations

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar heard the appeal. The Court insisted on the importance of discipline within the legal profession, stating:

“See your conduct. As a lawyer, you dashed your car into the hotel of the complainant. Lawyers need to be disciplined and not spoil the image of the entire profession.”

The Court found no valid reason to interfere with the BCI's decision and upheld the enhanced suspension. 

Legal Arguments and the Court's Rationale

Advocate Abhinav Agrawal, representing Karmegam, argued that the Advocates Act, 1961, does not provide for a review mechanism once the Supreme Court has confirmed an order. He contended that the doctrine of merger applied, precluding the BCI from reopening the matter.

However, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments, noting that the BCI's review and subsequent enhancement of the suspension were within its disciplinary powers. The Court emphasised that the BCI's decision was proportionate and served the interest of justice. 

Implications for the Legal Profession

This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining high ethical standards within the legal profession. It serves as a reminder that misconduct, especially acts that tarnish the profession's image, will be met with stringent disciplinary actions.

On May 23, 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a pivotal judgment in the case of Under Armour, Inc. versus an Indian clothing company marketing products under the brand name AERO ARMOUR. The court held that even brief confusion in the minds of consumers is sufficient to establish trademark infringement under Indian law.

The division bench, comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta, overturned an earlier single-judge decision that had denied interim relief to Under Armour. The court observed that the marks "AERO ARMOUR" and "UNDER ARMOUR", though not identical, are deceptively similar when considered in their entirety.

The court stated:

“If the customer looks at the impugned marks and associates the same with the appellant's marks, even though for a brief period, the appellant's trademarks would be infringed. The duration of the confusion in the minds of the customer is not material.”

This ruling underscores the principle that the likelihood of confusion, even if momentary, is a critical factor in determining trademark infringement.

Implications for Trademark Law in India

The Delhi High Court's decision reinforces the stringent standards applied to protect intellectual property rights in India. By acknowledging that even transient confusion can harm a brand's reputation and goodwill, the court has set a precedent that may influence future cases involving similar disputes.

This judgment aligns with previous decisions where the court has prioritised the protection of established trademarks against potential infringement. For instance, in a 2024 case, the court granted an injunction to INFOSYS against Southern Infosys Ltd, citing phonetic and conceptual similarities that could confuse consumers. 

Legal experts suggest that this ruling may prompt businesses to exercise greater caution in selecting brand names and trademarks, ensuring they do not inadvertently infringe upon existing marks, even if the similarity appears minimal or the potential for confusion seems fleeting.

Case Background: Under Armour vs. AERO ARMOUR

Under Armour, Inc., a prominent American sportswear company, initiated legal proceedings against an Indian entity marketing apparel under the name AERO ARMOUR. Under Armour contended that the use of "AERO ARMOUR" constituted an infringement of its registered trademark "UNDER ARMOUR", leading to consumer confusion and dilution of its brand identity.

Initially, a single judge of the Delhi High Court declined to grant interim relief to Under Armour, suggesting that the marks were not sufficiently similar to warrant such action. However, upon appeal, the division bench reversed this decision, emphasising the holistic similarity between the two marks and the potential for even brief consumer confusion to cause significant harm to the trademark holder.

The court's interim order restrains the Indian company from using the "AERO ARMOUR" mark, pending the final resolution of the case.

Expert Commentary

Legal professionals have lauded the Delhi High Court's decision for its robust protection of trademark rights. By recognising that even momentary confusion can be detrimental to a brand's reputation, the court has reinforced the importance of distinctiveness in trademarks.

Sunil Ambalavelil, Chairman of Kaden Boriss, a prominent international law firm, welcomed the Delhi High Court’s decision as a significant reinforcement of India’s trademark jurisprudence. 

With over two decades of experience advising on intellectual property law, data protection and business setup, Ambalavelil stated: 

“The Delhi High Court’s ruling sets a strong precedent in affirming that even fleeting or initial confusion in the consumer’s mind can amount to trademark infringement.”

Key Takeaways

• The Delhi High Court ruled that even brief consumer confusion can amount to trademark infringement.

• Under Armour vs. AERO ARMOUR case set a precedent for stricter brand protection.

• The court overturned a previous ruling, granting relief to Under Armour.

• Businesses must be cautious when selecting trademarks to avoid legal disputes.

• Decision reinforces intellectual property laws, prioritising brand distinctiveness in India.

In a pivotal ruling on May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India mandated that candidates must possess a minimum of three years of legal practice to qualify for entry-level positions in the judicial service. This decision marks a significant shift from the 2002 policy that permitted fresh law graduates to directly enter the judiciary without prior courtroom experience. 

Background and Rationale

The verdict was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran. The Court emphasised that firsthand experience in legal practice is indispensable for judicial officers, as it equips them with practical insights into the intricacies of litigation and the administration of justice.

The Court observed that the recruitment of fresh law graduates without any practical experience had led to several challenges. Feedback from various High Courts indicated that such appointees often lacked the necessary understanding of courtroom procedures and the nuances of legal practice, which are crucial for effective judicial functioning. 

Implementation Details

Under the new directive:

• Eligibility Criterion: Candidates aspiring to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination must have completed a minimum of three years of legal practice. 

• Certification Requirement: Applicants are required to furnish a certificate attesting to their legal practice. For those practising in trial courts, this certificate must be issued by the Principal District Judge. Candidates practising in High Courts must obtain endorsements from an advocate with at least ten years of standing at the Bar. 

• Recognition of Clerkship: Experience gained as a law clerk to judges will also be considered valid legal practice for eligibility. 

• Training Mandate: All new judicial appointees are required to undergo one year of mandatory training before presiding over court proceedings. 

• Prospective Application: The ruling will apply to future recruitment processes. Ongoing or already-notified recruitment drives will not be affected by this change.

Historical Context

The requirement for prior legal practice was initially established in the 1993 All India Judges Association v. Union of India case. However, in 2002, the Supreme Court removed this prerequisite based on recommendations from the Shetty Commission, which argued that the condition deterred bright young graduates from pursuing a judicial career. The Commission suggested that structured judicial training could compensate for the lack of practical experience. 

Over time, concerns emerged regarding the efficacy of appointing judges without courtroom experience. Various High Courts reported that such appointments often resulted in inefficiencies and a lack of practical understanding, prompting a re-evaluation of the eligibility criteria.

Implications for Aspiring Judges

This ruling necessitates a strategic shift for law graduates aiming for a judicial career. Instead of directly entering the judiciary post-graduation, they must now engage in active legal practice for at least three years. This period is expected to provide them with the necessary exposure to legal procedures, client interactions, and courtroom dynamics, thereby enhancing their readiness for judicial responsibilities.

Moreover, the inclusion of clerkship experience as valid practice offers an alternative pathway for candidates to gain relevant exposure, especially for those who may not engage in traditional litigation roles.

Broader Impact on the Judicial System

The reinstatement of the practice requirement is anticipated to elevate the quality of judicial appointments, ensuring that judges possess both theoretical knowledge and practical experience. This move aligns with the broader objective of enhancing the efficiency and credibility of the judiciary.

Legal Expert Insights

Providing a global legal perspective, Sunil Ambalavelil, the Chairman of Kaden Boriss and an eminent legal expert based in Dubai, offered the following commentary:

“The reinstatement of the practice requirement by the Supreme Court is both timely and necessary. Across jurisdictions, including in many developed legal systems, judicial service eligibility is closely tied to practical experience.

This move brings India’s judicial appointment standards closer to international best practices and will help reinforce public confidence in the lower judiciary.”

Summary

The Supreme Court's decision to mandate a minimum of three years of legal practice for judicial service eligibility marks a significant development in the Indian legal landscape. By emphasising practical experience, the judiciary seeks to ensure that its officers are well-equipped to handle the complexities of legal adjudication, thereby strengthening the overall justice delivery system. 

For any enquiries or information, contact info@thelawreporters.com or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.