Fundamental Rights

Supreme Court Upholds 50% Reservation Limit, Clarifies State Powers in SEBC Identification: Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs. The Chief Minister & Ors. (2021) INSC 310

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L.Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Upholds 50% Reservation Limit, Clarifies State Powers in SEBC Identification: Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs. The Chief Minister & Ors. (2021) INSC 310 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the 50% ceiling on reservations can be breached and the extent of state power to identify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs). CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Reservation […]

Supreme Court Upholds 50% Reservation Limit, Clarifies State Powers in SEBC Identification: Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs. The Chief Minister & Ors. (2021) INSC 310 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan School Fee Regulation Act, 2016: Indian School, Jodhpur vs. State of Rajasthan (2021)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Dinesh Maheshwari, Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Right to Education, School Fee Regulation

Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan School Fee Regulation Act, 2016: Indian School, Jodhpur vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 and the extent of state regulation on private unaided school fees. CASE TYPE: Education Law, Regulatory Law Case Name: Indian School, Jodhpur & Anr. vs. State

Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan School Fee Regulation Act, 2016: Indian School, Jodhpur vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction but Sets Aside SC/ST Act Conviction in Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (27 April 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 376, Judges, M R Shah, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 3(2)(v), Sexual Offences

Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction but Sets Aside SC/ST Act Conviction in Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (27 April 2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Intersectionality of caste, gender and disability in cases of sexual assault and the interpretation of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction but Sets Aside SC/ST Act Conviction in Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (27 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court ensures admission for Ladakh students in MBBS programs: Farzana Batool vs. Union of India (2021) INSC 178 (9 April 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Human Rights, Judges, M R Shah, Non-Discrimination, Right to Education

Supreme Court Ensures Admission for Ladakh Students in MBBS Programs Date of the Judgment: 9 April 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 178 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M R Shah, J Can the fundamental right to education be denied to students from remote areas due to administrative hurdles? The Supreme Court of India recently

Supreme Court ensures admission for Ladakh students in MBBS programs: Farzana Batool vs. Union of India (2021) INSC 178 (9 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Deportation of Rohingya Refugees, Cites National Security Concerns (2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Deportation, Foreigners Act, 1946, Foreigners Act, 1946 with Section 2(a), Foreigners Act, 1946 with Section 3, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Non-refoulement, Refugee Law, S.A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Deportation of Rohingya Refugees, Cites National Security Concerns (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the principle of non-refoulement is applicable to Rohingya refugees in India, and whether they can be protected from deportation. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Refugee Law Case Name: Mohammad Salimullah and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. [Judgment

Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Deportation of Rohingya Refugees, Cites National Security Concerns (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules on validity of Section 254(2A) of Income Tax Act in stay order cases (06 April 2021)

/ Appellate Tribunal, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Hrishikesh Roy, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 254(2A), Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Stay Orders

Supreme Court on the Validity of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act Date of the Judgment: 06 April 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 185 Judges: Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Hrishikesh Roy. Can an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) automatically vacate a stay order if an appeal isn’t decided within 365

Supreme Court rules on validity of Section 254(2A) of Income Tax Act in stay order cases (06 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies regularization of contract employees: University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Contract Employees, Fundamental Rights, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Recruitment Process, Regularization, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies regularization of contract employees: University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether contract employees are entitled to regularization and what criteria should be used for their selection process. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union & Ors. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court clarifies regularization of contract employees: University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes FIR for promoting enmity: Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya (2021)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, 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 505, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences against Public Tranquility, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court quashes FIR for promoting enmity: Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Facebook post criticizing government inaction and highlighting discrimination against non-tribals constitutes an offense under Section 153A and 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya &

Supreme Court quashes FIR for promoting enmity: Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court forms Expert Committee to Decide on Felling of Trees for Development Projects (25 March 2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 48-A, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Fundamental Rights, Judges, S.A. Bobde, Sustainable Development, Tree Felling, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court forms Expert Committee to Decide on Felling of Trees for Development Projects (25 March 2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing development with environmental protection in projects requiring tree felling. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law Case Name: Association for Protection of Democratic Rights & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Judgment Date: 25 March

Supreme Court forms Expert Committee to Decide on Felling of Trees for Development Projects (25 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Permanent Commission for Women Officers, Addresses Systemic Discrimination: Lt. Col. Nitisha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (25 March 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 15(1), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M R Shah, Permanent Commission, Service Law, Short Service Commissioned Officers

Supreme Court Directs Permanent Commission for Women Officers, Addresses Systemic Discrimination LEGAL ISSUE: Addressing systemic discrimination and ensuring equal opportunities for women in the armed forces. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Constitutional Law Case Name: Lt. Col. Nitisha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 25 March 2021 Date of the Judgment: 25

Supreme Court Directs Permanent Commission for Women Officers, Addresses Systemic Discrimination: Lt. Col. Nitisha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (25 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rules on Interest on Loans During Moratorium: Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association vs. Union of India (23 March 2021)

/ Arbitrariness, Ashok Bhushan, Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 21, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 35A, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 12, Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 13, Disaster Relief, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court on Interest During Moratorium: Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association vs. Union of India (2021) Date of the Judgment: 23 March 2021 Citation: Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association (Regd.) vs. Union of India and others (2021) INSC 158 Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J. Can banks charge interest on

Supreme Court Rules on Interest on Loans During Moratorium: Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association vs. Union of India (23 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Brutal Murder Case: Aminuddin vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 82, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, M.R. Shah, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Brutal Murder Case: Aminuddin vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to an accused in a murder case by solely relying on Article 21 of the Constitution, without considering the seriousness of the offense and other relevant factors. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Brutal Murder Case: Aminuddin vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top