Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Renaming Places Named After Foreign Invaders (27 February 2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the names of places named after foreign invaders should be renamed to uphold the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law Case Name: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 27 February 2023 Date […]
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Renaming Places: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India (2023) Date of the Judgment: 27 February 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 174 Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can the past dictate the present? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a petition seeking to rename historical places named
Supreme Court to Reconsider Excommunication in Dawoodi Bohra Community: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) Date of the Judgment: February 10, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 108 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., Abhay S. Oka, J., Vikram Nath, J., and J.K. Maheshwari, J. Can a religious community’s practice
Supreme Court to Reconsider Excommunication in Dawoodi Bohra Community: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) **Date of the Judgment:** February 10, 2023 **Citation:** 2023 INSC 1152 **Judges:** Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., Abhay S. Oka, J., Vikram Nath, J., and J.K. Maheshwari, J. Can the practice of excommunication
Date of the Judgment: 13 October 2022 Citation: Aishat Shifa v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (2022) INSC 900 Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Divergent Opinion) Can a state government enforce a uniform in schools that effectively bans religious attire like the hijab? The Supreme Court of India grappled with this
Supreme Court Upholds Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Act, Settles Inter-State Body Corporate Issue LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Haryana State Legislature has the legislative competence to enact the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014, or if it falls under the exclusive domain of the Parliament as an inter-state body corporate. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Religious Institutions Case
Supreme Court Upholds Right to Dignified Burial, Denies Exhumation in Terrorist Encounter Case LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing the right to a dignified burial with concerns of public order and security. CASE TYPE: Writ Petition/Civil Appeal Case Name: Mohammad Latief Magrey vs. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. Judgment Date: 12 September 2022 Date
Supreme Court Upholds Service Tax on Haj Tour Operators: All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Haj Group Organizers (HGOs) or Private Tour Operators (PTOs) are liable to pay service tax on services rendered to Haj pilgrims. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: All India Haj
Supreme Court permits Parsi funeral rites during COVID-19: Surat Parsi Panchayat Board vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing religious freedom with public health concerns during a pandemic. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law/Religious Rights Case Name: The Surat Parsi Panchayat Board and Another vs. Union of India and Others Judgment Date: 4 February 2022 Date
Supreme Court Clarifies Review Petition Scope in Religious Freedom Cases (2020) Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2020 Citation: Not Available Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, S. Abdul Nazeer, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, JJ. This was a nine-judge bench. Can the Supreme
Sabarimala Temple Entry: Supreme Court Upholds Women’s Rights in Review Petitions (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the Sabarimala Temple is constitutional. CASE TYPE: Religious Rights/Constitutional Law Case Name: Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association [Judgment Date]: November 14, 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment: November 14, 2019
Sabarimala Temple Entry: Supreme Court Upholds Women’s Rights in Review Petitions (2019) Read Post »
Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 837 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI; A.M. Khanwilkar, J; R.F. Nariman, J; D.Y. Chandrachud, J; Indu Malhotra, J (Majority Opinion by Dipak Misra, CJI, concurring opinion by R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud, J; Dissenting Opinion by Indu Malhotra, J) Can a centuries-old tradition justify the exclusion
