Welcome to LEX INDIS

A boutique law firm that provides solutions beyond the ordinary with a holistic approach;

A full service law firm having rich experience in providing cost effective solutions in diverse areas of legal practice and services;

A name that strives to provide Logical, Ethical, eXpert, Intellectual, Normative, Diligent and Ideal Solutions;

Where a team of legal experts having over 200 man years of experience in dealing with legal nuances, provides the best legal solutions.

Areas of Practice
Our Team

The team at Lex Indis carries an outstanding ability to understand, analyze, multi-task, and efficiently meet the clients’ requirements. With more than 200 man years of legal expertise residing amongst our team of skilled professionals, we deliver highest quality of service, offering each client a single point contact with prompt response. We possess an effective and well-informed, accessible team of four founder members with more than three and a half decades of industry experience that gives us the ability to innovate the most enviable practical solutions to the legal issues.

Our team structure has been designed and shaped in a manner that not only ensures satisfactory, responsive and successful client deliverables but also maintains impeccable standards of clients’ confidentiality and privacy. The team at Lex Indis is highly competent to make representations and argue matters before any Fora or Authority in any jurisdiction.

Where others may stop, we pace with a blend of strong communication, interpersonal and indispensable advisory skills to meet the changing needs of our patrons with highest ethical standards.

Ajay Kumar Tandon

Managing Partner

Experience: Since 1983

Saran Suri

Senior Partner

Experience: Since 1983

Sunil Kumar Gandhi

Senior Partner

Experience: Since 1982

Manjula Gandhi

Senior Partner

Experience: Since 1986

Esteemed Clients
News & Events
Aadhaar link for social media? Supreme Court seeks government stand

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to clarify whether it was framing guidelines for authenticating social media accounts by linking them to their users’ Aadhaar number or any other official document that can establish their identity. The bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose posted the next hearing to September 24, by when the government said it would state its position. The court is hearing a plea from Facebook, which wants a batch of petitions on the subject pending before various high courts to be transferred to the Supreme Court. The bench said the Centre’s stand would have a bearing on the transfer plea. These high court petitions, moved in Chennai, Mumbai and Madhya Pradesh, want social media accounts linked to Aadhaar or other official IDs as a shield against criminals misusing the online platforms to spread rumours, fake news, porn or terror messages. Attorney-general K.K. Venugopal, who had appeared for the Tamil Nadu government at the previous hearing, opposed the transfer plea. He said Madras High Court had already conducted 18 hearings and the social media platforms had advanced their arguments. Tamil Nadu argues that Madras High Court should continue hearing the matter in the interests of a speedy disposal. It has complained that when law-enforcement agencies seek information to investigate online crimes, the Internet companies often fail to provide satisfactory responses. “The failure of these companies to comply in the past and unwillingness to comply in the future is the sole reason that the instant transfer petition has been filed,” the state government said. “In the absence of expeditious disposal of the instant matter, foreign companies such as the petitioner (Facebook) would continue to operate in India without complying with or submitting to India law, the effect of which (will be) increased lawlessness, greater difficulty in preventing and detecting crimes, and overall breakdown of law and order.”

Adultery Not A Crime

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a 158-year-old law that considers adultery to be an offence committed by one man against another, and has been criticised for treating women as possessions rather than human beings. The court declared that Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code -- the adultery law -- was unconstitutional (See factbox below). The section reads: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery." Adultery is no longer a crime, but it will continue to be grounds for divorce. Chief Justice Dipak Misra said adultery may not be the cause of an unhappy marriage, but the result of one. Misra, who wrote a judgment for himself and Justice AM Khanwilkar, said the unequal treatment of women invites the wrath of the Constitution, and that any provision treating women unequally isn't constitutional. The other judges on the bench were Justice RF Nariman, Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justice Indu Malhotra. FACTBOX: THE JUDGMENT IN TEN POINTS * Five judges, including Chief Justice Dipak Misra, unanimously strike down Section 497 * Equality the governing parameter of the Constitution: Misra * It's time to say the husband is not the master of the woman: Misra * Section 497 manifestly arbitrary the way it deals with women: Misra * IPC Section 497 and CrPC Section 198 unconstitutional: Misra and AM Khanwilkar * Adultery can be grounds for divorce, but not a criminal offence: Misra * A woman loses her voice, autonomy after entering marriage: DY Chandrachud * Autonomy intrinsic in dignified human existence: Chandrachud * Manifest arbitrariness is writ large in Section 497: Chandrachud * No justification for the continuation of Section 497: Indu Malhotra * Section 497 a clear violation of fundamental rights granted in Constitution: Malhotra Justice DY Chandrachud said Section 497 destroyed women's dignity and self-respect as it treated them as their husbands' chattel, and offended their sexual freedom. Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery. Chandrachud has now overturned his father Justice YV Chandrachud's 1985 ruling that held the adultery law to be constitutionally valid. Chief Justice Misra pointed out that adultery isn't a crime in countries like China, Japan and Australia. He and Khanwilkar said mere adultery can't be a crime, but also that if an aggrieved spouse commits suicide because of his or her partner's adulterous relationship, then -- if evidence is produced -- it could be treated as abetment to suicide.

Aadhaar Constitutional But Conditions Apply

A five-judge bench of Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that government provisions asking people to link mobile numbers and bank accounts to Aadhaar number are unconstitutional. The bench said that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) Rules as well as the notification issued by Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in this regard were unconstitutional and hence need not be followed. In other words, this means that you don't have to anymore link your Aadhaar number with your mobile phone number or bank account number. It also means that banks and mobile phone companies can't anymore insist on Aadhaar number to verify your details while giving you a new connection or a new bank account. The overall verdict of the court was to uphold the legality of Aadhaar. The court said that Aadhaar is valid and is constitutional, although many of its provisions have problems. A lot of these have been struck down. One that is particularly important is the Section 57, which allowed private companies -- for example like courier companies or Paytm etc -- to use Aadhaar as a tool for authentication. This too has been struck down with the court saying that private companies cannot use Aadhaar number for any verification purposes. For little over a year now, there is a debate raging about the linking of mobile phone numbers and bank accounts to Aadhaar number. Even after the Supreme Court earlier said in its interim order that Aadhaar couldn't be mandatory for bank accounts and mobile numbers, the companies continued to demand it from their customers. Now, with the final order from the Supreme Court calling the linking illegal they will have to stop it. At the same time, do note that the Supreme Court has upheld the linking of Aadhaar with Income Tax records as well as with the PAN card. So in a way, your bank account will be linked to Aadhaar but there won't be any daily harassment from the banks about it. The government in 2017 had come out with directives that told banks and mobile phone companies to seek Aadhaar number from their customers. The finance ministry had amended the PMLA Rules, which aim to curb money laundering, to make Aadhaar mandatory for new and existing bank accounts. The DoT, meanwhile, had ordered a re-verfication of all mobile phone numbers in the country through Aadhaar number, saying that this was needed because of the national security concerns.

Supreme Court agrees to live streaming of court proceedings

Sunlight is the best disinfectant", the Supreme Court said Wednesday as it agreed to the live-streaming and video recording of court proceedings. Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar delivered a common judgment. Justice DY Chandrachud's verdict was separate, but concurring. Live streaming will bring in more transparency in judicial proceedings and effectuate the "public right to know", the court said. Petitions had been filed by Indira Jaising, a senior lawyer, the NGO Centre For Accountability and Systemic Change, and others. Earlier, the top court delivered major verdicts on Aadhaar and reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

We never stop Improving



Support Staff


Reported Cases