Fundamental Rights

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the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003, which repealed the Karnataka Contract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 »

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Bombay High Court Order on Land Encroachment: Vimal Babu Dhumadiya vs. State of Maharashtra (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Sandeep Mehta, Sanjay Karol, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Bombay High Court Order on Land Encroachment: Vimal Babu Dhumadiya vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can declare a High Court judgment illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution, and what remedies are available to parties not heard in the original proceedings. CASE TYPE: Constitutional

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Bombay High Court Order on Land Encroachment: Vimal Babu Dhumadiya vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates Basic Toilet Facilities in All Courts: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 with Rule 10, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 with Section 3

Supreme Court Mandates Basic Toilet Facilities in All Courts: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Ensuring basic sanitation and hygiene in court premises as a fundamental right. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 15 January 2025 Date of the Judgment: 15

Supreme Court Mandates Basic Toilet Facilities in All Courts: Rajeev Kalita vs. Union of India (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court extends Probation Act benefit in cross-case: Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 46

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 325, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 326, Offences Against Human Body, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with Section 11, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with Section 4

Supreme Court extends Probation Act benefit in cross-case: Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 46 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to an accused in a cross-case where the other group has already been granted such benefit, given that both cases arise from the same

Supreme Court extends Probation Act benefit in cross-case: Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan (2025) INSC 46 Read Post »

Supreme Court directs Central Government to implement cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims: S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India (2025) INSC 45 (08 January 2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 162, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 164-B, Road Accident Victims

Supreme Court directs Central Government to implement cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims: S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India (2025) INSC 45 (08 January 2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Implementation of a cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims during the golden hour. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Motor Vehicle Law Case Name: S. Rajaseekaran vs.

Supreme Court directs Central Government to implement cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims: S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India (2025) INSC 45 (08 January 2025) Read Post »

Scroll to Top