Constitutional Law with Article 32

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Conditions for Child Repatriation to the US in Habeas Corpus Case: Sri Nilanjan Bhattacharya vs. State of Karnataka (2020) INSC 483 (23 September 2020)

/ Child Welfare, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Custody Disputes, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Family Law, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 with Section 7, Indu Malhotra, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Writ Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Conditions for Child Repatriation to the US in Habeas Corpus Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can impose conditions on the repatriation of a child to their native country in a habeas corpus petition, especially concerning health certificates related to a pandemic. CASE TYPE: Habeas Corpus, Child Custody […]

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Conditions for Child Repatriation to the US in Habeas Corpus Case: Sri Nilanjan Bhattacharya vs. State of Karnataka (2020) INSC 483 (23 September 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Registry Bias: Reepak Kansal vs. Supreme Court of India (2020)

/ Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Judges, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Registry Bias: Reepak Kansal vs. Supreme Court of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Allegations of preferential treatment by the Supreme Court Registry. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India & Ors. Judgment Date: July 6, 2020 Date of the Judgment: July 6, 2020

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Registry Bias: Reepak Kansal vs. Supreme Court of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Mukesh’s Plea in Delhi Gang Rape Case: A Review of Exhausted Legal Avenues (19 March 2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Dismisses Mukesh’s Plea in Delhi Gang Rape Case: A Review of Exhausted Legal Avenues (2020) Date of the Judgment: 19 March 2020 The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, addressed a writ petition filed by Mukesh, a convict in the Delhi gang rape case, after multiple previous legal challenges. The core issue

Supreme Court Dismisses Mukesh’s Plea in Delhi Gang Rape Case: A Review of Exhausted Legal Avenues (19 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Mercy Petition in Nirbhaya Case: Vinay Sharma vs. Union of India (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Constitutional Law with Article 72, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376(2)(g), Judges, Judicial Review, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Mercy Petition in Nirbhaya Case: Vinay Sharma vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Judicial review of the President’s decision on a mercy petition. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Vinay Sharma vs. Union of India and Others. Judgment Date: 14 February 2020 Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2020

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Mercy Petition in Nirbhaya Case: Vinay Sharma vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Floor Test in Maharashtra Political Crisis: Shiv Sena vs. Union of India (26 November 2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 212, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Governor's Powers, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Orders Floor Test in Maharashtra Political Crisis: Shiv Sena vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Governor’s decision to invite a party to form a government without a floor test can be challenged. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Writ Jurisdiction. Case Name: Shiv Sena and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.

Supreme Court Orders Floor Test in Maharashtra Political Crisis: Shiv Sena vs. Union of India (26 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rafale Deal, Dismisses Review Petitions: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 340, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 137, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 17A, Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Rafale Deal, Dismisses Review Petitions: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Review of Supreme Court judgment on the legality of the Rafale fighter jet deal. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Criminal Review Case Name: Yashwant Sinha & Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through its Director & Anr. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Upholds Rafale Deal, Dismisses Review Petitions: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Disqualification Powers of Speaker in Karnataka Defection Case: Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2019) INSC 910 (13 November 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Disqualifications for Membership, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Krishna Murari, N.V. Ramana, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 36, Sanjiv Khanna, Tenth Schedule

Supreme Court Clarifies Disqualification Powers of Speaker in Karnataka Defection Case LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of the Speaker’s power to disqualify members under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and the extent of judicial review in such matters. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Anti-Defection Law Case Name: Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly and

Supreme Court Clarifies Disqualification Powers of Speaker in Karnataka Defection Case: Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2019) INSC 910 (13 November 2019) Read Post »

Shri Jagannath Temple Administration: Supreme Court Orders Reforms in Temple Management (4 November 2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Hereditary Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Religious Institutions Law, Religious Institutions Law with Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, S. Ravindra Bhat, Temple Administration

Supreme Court Directs Reforms for Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri (2019) Date of the Judgment: 4 November 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 123 Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M.R. Shah, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J. Can a temple’s administration be improved to better serve devotees while preserving its traditions? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in

Shri Jagannath Temple Administration: Supreme Court Orders Reforms in Temple Management (4 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Medical Admission Standards for PwD Candidates: Vidhi Himmat Katariya vs. State of Gujarat (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Judges, M.R. Shah, Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 32

Supreme Court Upholds Medical Admission Standards for PwD Candidates: Vidhi Himmat Katariya vs. State of Gujarat (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether revised eligibility criteria for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) for MBBS admissions can be applied mid-selection process. CASE TYPE: Education/Disability Law Case Name: Vidhi Himmat Katariya and others vs. The State of Gujarat and others [Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Medical Admission Standards for PwD Candidates: Vidhi Himmat Katariya vs. State of Gujarat (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Completion of Amrapali Group Projects, Protecting Homebuyers: Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 12(1)(c), Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 53, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 11(4), Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 4(2)(l)(D), Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 8, Uday Umesh Lalit

Amrapali Group Homebuyers Win Relief: Supreme Court Orders Project Completion LEGAL ISSUE: Protection of homebuyers’ rights and completion of stalled real estate projects. CASE TYPE: Real Estate/Consumer Law. Case Name: Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 23 July 2019 Date of the Judgment: 23 July 2019 Citation: Not Available

Supreme Court Orders Completion of Amrapali Group Projects, Protecting Homebuyers: Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside CBI Probe Order in Religious Trust Property Dispute: Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir vs. State of Jharkhand (2019)

/ Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Religious Trust Law, Religious Trust Law with Section 28(j), Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, Religious Trust Law with Section 44, Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950

Supreme Court Sets Aside CBI Probe Order in Religious Trust Property Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can order a CBI investigation into a matter of sale of property of a religious trust, giving rise to a civil dispute. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Religious Trust Property Dispute. Case Name: Shree Shree Ram Janki

Supreme Court Sets Aside CBI Probe Order in Religious Trust Property Dispute: Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir vs. State of Jharkhand (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Contempt of Court and Dismisses Second Review Petition: National Lawyers’ Campaign vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 16, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 129, Constitutional Law with Article 215, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Contempt of Court, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with Section 14, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Supreme Court Rules, Supreme Court Rules with Order XLVII Rule 5, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Addresses Contempt of Court and Dismisses Second Review Petition Date of the Judgment: March 12, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 229 Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, J., Vineet Saran, J. Can a lawyer’s disrespectful behavior towards the court be considered contempt, and can a second review petition be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution?

Supreme Court Addresses Contempt of Court and Dismisses Second Review Petition: National Lawyers’ Campaign vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top