Constitutional Law with Article 14

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of persons with disabilities to scribes in the Civil Services Examination: Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (2021) INSC 75 (11 February 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16(1), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Reasonable Accommodation, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 2(s), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 20, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Persons with Disabilities to Scribes in Civil Services Exam Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 75 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Indira Banerjee, J, Sanjiv Khanna, J Can a person with a disability, not classified as having a “benchmark disability,” be denied a scribe for […]

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of persons with disabilities to scribes in the Civil Services Examination: Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (2021) INSC 75 (11 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Stays Additional Police Sub-Inspector Appointments: Gajanan Bansode vs. State of Maharashtra (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 320, Indu Malhotra, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Recruitment Rules, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 5 of the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Stays Additional Police Sub-Inspector Appointments: Gajanan Bansode vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government can appoint additional candidates beyond the notified vacancies for the post of Police Sub-Inspector without consulting the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) and violating the prescribed recruitment rules. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Gajanan

Supreme Court Stays Additional Police Sub-Inspector Appointments: Gajanan Bansode vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Rule on Medical Admissions: Index Medical College vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (03 February 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Madhya Pradesh Act of 2007, Madhya Pradesh Act of 2007 with Section 12

Supreme Court Strikes Down Rule on Medical Admissions: Index Medical College vs. State of Madhya Pradesh LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a rule preventing private medical colleges from filling vacant seats after the mop-up round of counseling is a violation of their rights. CASE TYPE: Education Law, specifically concerning admissions to medical colleges. Case Name: Index Medical

Supreme Court Strikes Down Rule on Medical Admissions: Index Medical College vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (03 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: A Detailed Analysis of Manish Kumar vs. Union of India (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 32A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 19 Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha, and K.M. Joseph, JJ. Can a group of homebuyers be required to meet a threshold before initiating insolvency proceedings against a builder? The Supreme Court of India recently

Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: A Detailed Analysis of Manish Kumar vs. Union of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Chief Justice’s Power to Set Qualifications for Promotions: Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Classification of Employees, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 229, Judges, Promotions, S.A. Bobde, Service Law, Service Rules, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Chief Justice’s Power to Set Qualifications for Promotions: Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Chief Justice of a High Court can prescribe educational qualifications for promotions within the High Court’s staff, and whether such classifications based on qualifications are valid. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case

Supreme Court Upholds Chief Justice’s Power to Set Qualifications for Promotions: Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment Rules for Munsiff-Magistrates in Kerala: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991, Service Law, Service Law with Malik Mazhar Sultan Case

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment Rules for Munsiff-Magistrates in Kerala: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of State Judicial Service Rules regarding the filling of vacancies. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others [Judgment Date]: 11 January 2021 Introduction Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment Rules for Munsiff-Magistrates in Kerala: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Further Investigation in Murder Case Due to Inadequate Police Inquiry: Amar Nath Chaubey vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Criminal Procedure Code, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Investigation of Cognizable Offence, Judges, Krishna Murari, Navin Sinha, Offences Against Human Body, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Orders Further Investigation in Murder Case Due to Inadequate Police Inquiry | Amar Nath Chaubey vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can order further investigation into a criminal case if the initial police investigation is deemed inadequate and perfunctory. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Amar Nath Chaubey vs.

Supreme Court Orders Further Investigation in Murder Case Due to Inadequate Police Inquiry: Amar Nath Chaubey vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Bans Affixing Posters on Homes of COVID-19 Patients: Kush Kalra vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Fundamental Rights, Guidelines, Judges, M.R. Shah, Public Health Measures, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Bans Affixing Posters on Homes of COVID-19 Patients: Kush Kalra vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether affixing posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons is a violation of their fundamental right to privacy and dignity. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Kush Kalra vs. Union of India and Ors.

Supreme Court Bans Affixing Posters on Homes of COVID-19 Patients: Kush Kalra vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Selection List Based on 2nd Answer Key in Teacher Recruitment Case: Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Expert Opinion, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Judicial Review, L. Nageswara Rao, Scope of Judicial Review

Supreme Court Upholds Selection List Based on 2nd Answer Key in Teacher Recruitment Case Date of the Judgment: December 7, 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 686 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J., Ajay Rastogi, J. Can a High Court interfere with the recommendations of an expert committee regarding answer keys in a public service

Supreme Court Upholds Selection List Based on 2nd Answer Key in Teacher Recruitment Case: Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds GST on Lotteries, Dismisses Discrimination Claims: Skill Lotto Solutions vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with Section 15, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with Section 2(52), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 246A, Constitutional Law with Article 366(12), Judges, M.R. Shah, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Upholds GST on Lotteries, Dismisses Discrimination Claims: Skill Lotto Solutions vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on lotteries is constitutional and non-discriminatory. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 03 December

Supreme Court Upholds GST on Lotteries, Dismisses Discrimination Claims: Skill Lotto Solutions vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Appointments of Sub-Inspectors Despite Merit List Discrepancies: Pankjeshwar Sharma vs. State of J&K (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Merit List, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Appointments of Sub-Inspectors Despite Merit List Discrepancies: Pankjeshwar Sharma vs. State of J&K (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether appointments made based on a concession by the Advocate General, deviating from the merit list, are valid. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Recruitment Case Name: Pankjeshwar Sharma and Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

Supreme Court Upholds Appointments of Sub-Inspectors Despite Merit List Discrepancies: Pankjeshwar Sharma vs. State of J&K (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Time-Bound Promotion to Promoted Assistant Engineers: Inderjit Singh Sodhi vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Service Law, Service Law with Regulation 7, Service Law with Regulation 9, Time-Bound Promotion

Supreme Court Denies Time-Bound Promotion to Promoted Assistant Engineers: Inderjit Singh Sodhi vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether promoted Assistant Engineers are entitled to the same time-bound promotional scales as directly recruited Assistant Engineers. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Inderjit Singh Sodhi and Others vs. The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board

Supreme Court Denies Time-Bound Promotion to Promoted Assistant Engineers: Inderjit Singh Sodhi vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top