Fundamental Rights

Supreme Court settles the maintainability of writ petition challenging the decision of Ethics Committee: Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh vs. Bihar Legislative Council (2025) INSC 264 (25 February 2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 212(1), Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 151A, Surya Kant

Date of the Judgment: 25 February 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 264 Judges: Surya Kant, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. Can a legislative body’s decision to expel a member be challenged in court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh vs. Bihar Legislative Council. The court […]

Supreme Court settles the maintainability of writ petition challenging the decision of Ethics Committee: Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh vs. Bihar Legislative Council (2025) INSC 264 (25 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court grants bail due to delayed trial in UAPA case: Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) INSC 222 (14 February 2025)

/ Constitution of India, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 149, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA), Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) with Section 13, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) with Section 17

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 14th February, 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 222 Judges: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan What happens when a trial is significantly delayed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The Court considered the balance between the seriousness

Supreme Court grants bail due to delayed trial in UAPA case: Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) INSC 222 (14 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking clarification on statements made during Habeas Corpus petition: Dhanlaxmi vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 196 (12 February 2025)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Code of Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Habeas Corpus, Judges, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 12, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 196 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah When can a court refuse to entertain repeated requests for clarification on statements made during court proceedings? The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Smt. Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking clarification on statements made during Habeas Corpus petition: Dhanlaxmi vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 196 (12 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Invalidates Appointment of Chairperson, National Commission for Homeopathy due to Ineligibility: Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 77, Dipankar Datta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Manmohan, National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020, National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 with Section 4, National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 with Section 5

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 12th February, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 201 Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Manmohan, J. Was the selection process for the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH) flawed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India & Ors., examining

Supreme Court Invalidates Appointment of Chairperson, National Commission for Homeopathy due to Ineligibility: Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes appointments made under flawed 2010 advertisement: Amrit Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (2025) INSC 176 (February 10, 2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Pankaj Mithal, Public Employment, Sandeep Mehta, Service Law

Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 176 Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. Was the recruitment process for Class IV employees in Palamu, Jharkhand, fair and transparent? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case involving appointments made based on an advertisement from 2010. The

Supreme Court quashes appointments made under flawed 2010 advertisement: Amrit Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (2025) INSC 176 (February 10, 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court: Violation of Article 22(1) renders arrest illegal in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2025)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 22(1), Criminal Law, Criminal Law with Section 50 CrPC, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 07, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 162 Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. Can an arrest be deemed illegal if the arrested person is not informed of the grounds for their arrest? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in Vihaan Kumar vs. State

Supreme Court: Violation of Article 22(1) renders arrest illegal in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Repeal of Karnataka Contract Carriages Act and Clarifies Delegation of Permit Powers: M/S S.R.S. Travels vs. KSRTC (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 39, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 68, Prasanna B. Varale, Vikram Nath

Date of the Judgment: February 06, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 152 Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Prasanna B. Varale, J. In a significant judgment impacting public and private transportation in Karnataka, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003, which repealed the Karnataka Contract

Supreme Court Upholds Repeal of Karnataka Contract Carriages Act and Clarifies Delegation of Permit Powers: M/S S.R.S. Travels vs. KSRTC (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles domicile-based reservation in PG Medical Courses: Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel & Ors. (2025) INSC 125 (29 January 2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Institutional Preference, Judges, Medical Education, Post Graduate Medical Courses, S.V.N. Bhatti, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 125 Judges: Hrishikesh Roy, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J. Is it constitutional for a state to reserve Post Graduate (PG) medical seats based on a candidate’s residence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question. This judgment clarifies the rules for

Supreme Court settles domicile-based reservation in PG Medical Courses: Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel & Ors. (2025) INSC 125 (29 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes conviction in murder case, emphasizes limits of revisional jurisdiction: Mahabir & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2025) INSC 120 (29 January 2025)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 401, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan, Revisional Jurisdiction

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 120 Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan Can a High Court reverse an acquittal order in its revisional jurisdiction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal. The court overturned a High Court’s decision that had convicted the

Supreme Court quashes conviction in murder case, emphasizes limits of revisional jurisdiction: Mahabir & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2025) INSC 120 (29 January 2025) Read Post »

Burial Rights: Supreme Court Directs Burial at Designated Site in Chhattisgarh Grave Dispute (27 January 2025)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1999, Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Local Governance, Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of the Judgment: 27 January 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 109 Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J. (Divided Opinion) Can a family bury their deceased in their own village, or must they use a designated site? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case from Chhattisgarh. The core

Burial Rights: Supreme Court Directs Burial at Designated Site in Chhattisgarh Grave Dispute (27 January 2025) Read Post »

Interim Bail for Election Canvassing: Supreme Court Addresses the Issue in Mohd. Tahir Hussain vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2025)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Pankaj Mithal, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 62(5)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: January 22, 2025 Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Can an accused person in jail be granted interim bail to campaign for an election? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Mohd. Tahir Hussain vs. State of NCT of Delhi. This judgment explores

Interim Bail for Election Canvassing: Supreme Court Addresses the Issue in Mohd. Tahir Hussain vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes penalty for Senior Medical Officer: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (20 January 2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 311(2), Dipankar Datta, Disciplinary Proceedings, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Manmohan, Pension, Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1970), Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1970) with Rule 8, Retirement Benefits, Service Law

Supreme Court quashes penalty for Senior Medical Officer: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated against a public servant just before retirement and the subsequent penalty imposed were justified. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab and Others [Judgment Date]: 20 January

Supreme Court quashes penalty for Senior Medical Officer: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (20 January 2025) Read Post »

Scroll to Top