Constitutional Law with Article 19

Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility Under Section 29A of IBC Extends to Section 230 of Companies Act in Liquidation: Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (2021) INSC 158

/ Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 230, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 35(1)(f), Judges, M R Shah, Resolution Process

Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility Under Section 29A of IBC Extends to Section 230 of Companies Act in Liquidation: Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (2021) INSC 158 Date of the Judgment: 15 March 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 158 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M R Shah, J Can promoters who […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Ineligibility Under Section 29A of IBC Extends to Section 230 of Companies Act in Liquidation: Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (2021) INSC 158 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limits of free speech, hate speech, and multiple FIRs in media broadcasts: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (7 December 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 295A, Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 66F, Judges, Offences Against Public Tranquillity, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court on Hate Speech and Multiple FIRs: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: The case addresses the legal boundaries between free speech and hate speech, particularly in the context of media broadcasts, and the issue of multiple FIRs for the same incident. CASE TYPE: Criminal Writ Petition Case Name: Amish Devgan

Supreme Court clarifies limits of free speech, hate speech, and multiple FIRs in media broadcasts: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (7 December 2020) Read Post »

Internet Restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir: Supreme Court Orders Special Committee Review (May 11, 2020)

/ B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Fundamental Rights, Judges, N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy, Telecom Services Rules, Telecom Services Rules with Review Committee, Telecom Suspension Rules

Supreme Court Directs Formation of Special Committee to Review Internet Restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir Date of the Judgment: May 11, 2020 Citation: FOUNDATION FOR MEDIA PROFESSIONALS vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ANR. (2020) INSC 415 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., B.R. Gavai, J. Can the government restrict internet

Internet Restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir: Supreme Court Orders Special Committee Review (May 11, 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “political nature” for NGOs receiving foreign funds: Indian Social Action Forum vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Deepak Gupta, Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 with Section 3(1)(f), Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 with Section 5(1), Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 with Section 5(4), Fundamental Rights, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Supreme Court Clarifies Foreign Contribution Rules for NGOs: Indian Social Action Forum vs. Union of India (2020) Date of the Judgment: March 6, 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 252 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Deepak Gupta, J. Can an organization be restricted from receiving foreign funds if it engages in activities like protests for public causes?

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “political nature” for NGOs receiving foreign funds: Indian Social Action Forum vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Dance, Strikes Down Obscene Dance Restrictions in Maharashtra: Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 292, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 294, Judges, Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act, 2016, Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act, 2016 with Section 2(8), Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act, 2016 with Section 6(4), Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act, 2016 with Section 8

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Dance, Strikes Down Obscene Dance Restrictions in Maharashtra: Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) Date of the Judgment: January 17, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 28 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. Can the state impose a complete ban on dance performances in hotels and bars?

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Dance, Strikes Down Obscene Dance Restrictions in Maharashtra: Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Protest but Regulates Demonstrations: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India (23 July 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 144, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Protest but Regulates Demonstrations: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing the right to protest with public order and the rights of residents. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Constitutional Law Case Name: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. The Union of India & Anr. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Protest but Regulates Demonstrations: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India (23 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Liberty in Custody Case: Nandakumar vs. State of Kerala (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 12, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 5, Individual Liberty, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Liberty in Custody Case: Nandakumar vs. State of Kerala (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Individual’s right to choose a partner and live with them, irrespective of the validity of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Habeas Corpus) Case Name: Nandakumar & Anr. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors.

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Liberty in Custody Case: Nandakumar vs. State of Kerala (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Liberty in Marriage Choice: Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Constitutional Law with Article 21, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Habeas Corpus, Habeas Corpus petition, Judges, Writ of Habeas Corpus

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Liberty in Marriage Choice: Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can annul a marriage in a habeas corpus petition based on its perception of social norms and the vulnerability of an adult woman. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Habeas Corpus, Family Law Case Name: Shafin Jahan

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Liberty in Marriage Choice: Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Transfer of Gorkhaland Agitation Cases to Independent Agency: Bimal Gurung vs. Union of India (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 154, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Offences against Public Tranquility

Supreme Court Denies Transfer of Gorkhaland Agitation Cases to Independent Agency: Bimal Gurung vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the investigation of criminal cases related to the Gorkhaland agitation should be transferred to an independent agency. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Bimal Gurung vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 16 March

Supreme Court Denies Transfer of Gorkhaland Agitation Cases to Independent Agency: Bimal Gurung vs. Union of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court mandates accessibility for disabled persons in public spaces: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India (2017) INSC 1087 (15 December 2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Judges, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 41, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 42, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 46

LEGAL ISSUE: Ensuring accessibility for persons with disabilities in public spaces and transport. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning disability rights. Case Name: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India and Others. [Judgment Date]: 15 December 2017. Introduction Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1087 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok

Supreme Court mandates accessibility for disabled persons in public spaces: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India (2017) INSC 1087 (15 December 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top