JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS R. MUTHUKUMAR V. CHAIRMAN TANGENCO “Principle of Parity and Legal Foundations”. In the absence of negative equality, the bestowal of benefits without a legal underpinning cannot serve as a reliable principle of parity. HAZARAT DEEN V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH “Inconsistencies Between FIR and Subsequent Section 164 Statement Not Sufficient Grounds for Discharge”. In the legal realm, it is imperative to note that disparities existing between the First Information Report (FIR) and a subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the criminal procedure code do not constitute adequate grounds for granting discharge. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH V. ANAND ENGINEERING COLLEGE “Authority's Power Limited: Forest Department Must Resort to Court Proceedings for Damages under Section 33 of Wildlife Protection Act”. In the legal context, it is essential to recognize that the Forest Department lacks the independent authority to levy damages under Section 33 of the Wildlife Protection Act. To ascertain damages, the appropriate course of action involves initiating proceedings before the relevant court. Furthermore, the court observed that, prior to imposing a substantial penalty of Rs. 10 crores, the institution in question was notably not served with a requisite show-cause notice.NCV AISHWARYA V. A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA “Factors Governing Transfer Pleas in Matrimonial Cases: A Holistic Approach”. In matters pertaining to matrimonial disputes, when the courts are tasked with’ evaluating transfer petitions, it becomes imperative to consider various factors, including the economic standing of both parties, the societal stratum they belong to, and their behavioural patterns. In a specific case, the husband initiated a petition for the annulment of marriage in the Family Court, Vellore. Subsequently, the wife filed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the CPC, seeking the transfer of the case to the Family Court in Chennai. Her submission emphasized her parents’ elderly status, her own age of 21 years, and her logistical challenges in traveling to the original court. MOHAMMAD ZUBAIR V. STATE OF NCT “Supreme Court Emphasizes Restrained Use of Arrest as a Punitive Measure”. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court underscored the need for caution in employing arrest as a punitive tool. The case of Mohammed Zubair highlighted the concerning trend of individuals being ensnared in a relentless cycle of criminal proceedings. The court pointed out that despite similar allegations stemming from particular tweets, the petitioner found himself entangled in multiple investigations across vatious jurisdictions, turning the investigative process into a form of punishment. The judgment emphasized the responsibility of police officers to thoroughly assess each case, egayeine adherence to’the conditions outlined in section 41 before resorting to arrest. The stance reflected a call fora judicious application of legal measures, discouraging the misuse of arrest as a means of punishment in itself.