Fundamental Rights

Supreme Court Directs Reopening of Anganwadi Centers for Child and Maternal Nutrition: Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs. Union of India (2021)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 47, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, National Food Security Act, 2013, National Food Security Act, 2013 with Section 4, National Food Security Act, 2013 with Section 5, National Food Security Act, 2013 with Section 6, Public Interest Litigation, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Directs Reopening of Anganwadi Centers for Child and Maternal Nutrition: Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Anganwadi Centers should be reopened to provide essential nutritional services to women and children during the COVID-19 pandemic. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (Constitutional Law) Case Name: Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs. Union […]

Supreme Court Directs Reopening of Anganwadi Centers for Child and Maternal Nutrition: Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs. Union of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment Rules for Munsiff-Magistrates in Kerala: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991, Service Law, Service Law with Malik Mazhar Sultan Case

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment Rules for Munsiff-Magistrates in Kerala: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of State Judicial Service Rules regarding the filling of vacancies. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others [Judgment Date]: 11 January 2021 Introduction Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment Rules for Munsiff-Magistrates in Kerala: High Court of Kerala vs. Reshma A. & Others (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Fire Safety Measures in COVID Hospitals: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7 of 2020 (18 December 2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Disaster Management Act, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, R. Subhash Reddy, Regulation of Private Hospitals

Supreme Court Directs Fire Safety Measures in COVID Hospitals Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2020 Citation: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7 of 2020 Judges: Ashok Bhushan J., R. Subhash Reddy J., and M.R. Shah J. Following tragic fire incidents in COVID-19 hospitals, resulting in the loss of lives, the Supreme Court of

Supreme Court Directs Fire Safety Measures in COVID Hospitals: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7 of 2020 (18 December 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies horizontal reservation for OBC women in UP Police Constable Recruitment (2020)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 16(1), Constitutional Law with Article 16(4), Fundamental Rights, Horizontal Reservation, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Recruitment, S. Ravindra Bhat, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vertical Reservation

Supreme Court Clarifies Horizontal Reservation for OBC Women in UP Police Constable Recruitment LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of horizontal reservation in public employment. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Recruitment. Case Name: Saurav Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Judgment Date: 18 December 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2020 Citation: (2020)

Supreme Court clarifies horizontal reservation for OBC women in UP Police Constable Recruitment (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Further Investigation in Murder Case Due to Inadequate Police Inquiry: Amar Nath Chaubey vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Criminal Procedure Code, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Investigation of Cognizable Offence, Judges, Krishna Murari, Navin Sinha, Offences Against Human Body, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Orders Further Investigation in Murder Case Due to Inadequate Police Inquiry | Amar Nath Chaubey vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can order further investigation into a criminal case if the initial police investigation is deemed inadequate and perfunctory. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Amar Nath Chaubey vs.

Supreme Court Orders Further Investigation in Murder Case Due to Inadequate Police Inquiry: Amar Nath Chaubey vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Bans Affixing Posters on Homes of COVID-19 Patients: Kush Kalra vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Fundamental Rights, Guidelines, Judges, M.R. Shah, Public Health Measures, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Bans Affixing Posters on Homes of COVID-19 Patients: Kush Kalra vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether affixing posters outside the residences of COVID-19 positive persons is a violation of their fundamental right to privacy and dignity. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Kush Kalra vs. Union of India and Ors.

Supreme Court Bans Affixing Posters on Homes of COVID-19 Patients: Kush Kalra vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Transfers Chartered Accountants’ Audit Cap Challenge: Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaji Poulose (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 with Second Schedule, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 139A(1), Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Fundamental Rights, Income-tax Act, 1961, Income-tax Act, 1961 with Section 44AB, Judges, M.R. Shah, Professional Misconduct, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Transfers Chartered Accountants’ Audit Cap Challenge: Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaji Poulose (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court should transfer writ petitions from various High Courts to itself, concerning the validity of guidelines limiting the number of tax audit assignments a Chartered Accountant can undertake. CASE TYPE: Regulatory/Professional Conduct

Supreme Court Transfers Chartered Accountants’ Audit Cap Challenge: Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaji Poulose (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limits of free speech, hate speech, and multiple FIRs in media broadcasts: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (7 December 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, 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 295A, Information Technology Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000 with Section 66F, Judges, Offences Against Public Tranquillity, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court on Hate Speech and Multiple FIRs: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: The case addresses the legal boundaries between free speech and hate speech, particularly in the context of media broadcasts, and the issue of multiple FIRs for the same incident. CASE TYPE: Criminal Writ Petition Case Name: Amish Devgan

Supreme Court clarifies limits of free speech, hate speech, and multiple FIRs in media broadcasts: Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (7 December 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Appointments of Sub-Inspectors Despite Merit List Discrepancies: Pankjeshwar Sharma vs. State of J&K (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Merit List, Recruitment Rules, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Appointments of Sub-Inspectors Despite Merit List Discrepancies: Pankjeshwar Sharma vs. State of J&K (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether appointments made based on a concession by the Advocate General, deviating from the merit list, are valid. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Recruitment Case Name: Pankjeshwar Sharma and Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

Supreme Court Upholds Appointments of Sub-Inspectors Despite Merit List Discrepancies: Pankjeshwar Sharma vs. State of J&K (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates CCTV in Police Stations and Central Agencies: Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh (2 December 2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 161, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Criminal Law, Custodial Violence, Fundamental Rights, Human Rights, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Police Procedures, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Mandates CCTV in Police Stations and Central Agencies: Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Implementation of videography and CCTV surveillance in police stations and central investigation agencies to ensure transparency and accountability. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Others Judgment Date: 2 December 2020

Supreme Court Mandates CCTV in Police Stations and Central Agencies: Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh (2 December 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Relieves Borrowers: No Compound Interest During Moratorium Period (27 November 2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 21, COVID-19 Pandemic, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 6, Financial Law, Fundamental Rights, Government Relief Measures, Judges, Loan Moratorium, M.R. Shah, R. Subhash Reddy, Reserve Bank of India Notifications

Supreme Court Relieves Borrowers: No Compound Interest During Moratorium Period LEGAL ISSUE: Whether interest should be charged on loan amounts during the moratorium period declared due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Financial Law Case Name: Gajendra Sharma vs. Union of India and Anr. Judgment Date: 27 November 2020 Date of the

Supreme Court Relieves Borrowers: No Compound Interest During Moratorium Period (27 November 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Return of Land After Unlawful Possession: B.K. Ravichandra vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300A, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 with Section 3, Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 with Section 6, Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 with Section 8, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Orders Return of Land After Unlawful Possession: B.K. Ravichandra vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Union of India can continue to possess land requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 after the requisition period has ended and without acquiring the land through due process. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Orders Return of Land After Unlawful Possession: B.K. Ravichandra vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top