Fundamental Rights

Supreme Court Upholds Policy Change in Abkari Worker Rehabilitation Case: Kerala State Beverages Corporation vs. P.P. Suresh (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Legitimate Expectation, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Policy Change in Abkari Worker Rehabilitation Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether displaced Abkari workers have a vested right to employment and the scope of legitimate expectation in government policy changes. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Administrative Law Case Name: Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Limited vs. P.P. Suresh & Ors. Judgment Date: 04 […]

Supreme Court Upholds Policy Change in Abkari Worker Rehabilitation Case: Kerala State Beverages Corporation vs. P.P. Suresh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Regulation on Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Danish Khan (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 140, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 166

Supreme Court Upholds Regulation on Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Danish Khan (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a regulation that denies compassionate appointment to the dependents of a deceased employee who have received compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is discriminatory. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Supreme Court Upholds Regulation on Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Danish Khan (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Verification of Caste Certificates Issued for Local Body Elections

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 15, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Verification of Caste Certificates Issued for Local Body Elections LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the constitution of Caste Scrutiny Committees and the mandatory requirement of vigilance cell reports, as per the Supreme Court’s directions, can be overridden by a state government’s notification. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Caste Certificate Verification Case Name: District

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Verification of Caste Certificates Issued for Local Body Elections Read Post »

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav Case: A Review of Circumstantial Evidence (2019)

/ Circumstantial Evidence, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Death Penalty, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav Case: A Review of Circumstantial Evidence (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Review of a death sentence based on circumstantial evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra Judgment Date: 01 October 2019 Date of the Judgment: 01

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav Case: A Review of Circumstantial Evidence (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Disclosure Requirements for Candidates: Satish Ukey vs. Devendra Fadnavis (2019)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(a), Deepak Gupta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Ranjan Gogoi, Representation of the People Act, 1951, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 125-A, Representation of the People Act, 1951 with Section 33-A

Supreme Court Clarifies Disclosure Requirements for Candidates: Satish Ukey vs. Devendra Fadnavis (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of information to be disclosed by a candidate in an election affidavit. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Satish Ukey vs. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis and Anr. [Judgment Date]: October 1, 2019 Date of the Judgment: October 1, 2019 Citation: [2019]

Supreme Court Clarifies Disclosure Requirements for Candidates: Satish Ukey vs. Devendra Fadnavis (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Revisits Atrocities Act Guidelines: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 41, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Relief and rehabilitation of victims, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 18, Separation of Powers

Supreme Court Revisits Atrocities Act Guidelines: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Review of guidelines regarding arrests under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law Case Name: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Judgment Date]: 01 October 2019

Supreme Court Revisits Atrocities Act Guidelines: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Minority Rights in Teacher Appointments: Chandana Das vs. State of West Bengal (25 September 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 30, Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Minority Educational Institutions, R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy, R.F. Nariman, Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969, Surya Kant, T.S. Thakur

Supreme Court Upholds Minority Rights in Teacher Appointments: Chandana Das vs. State of West Bengal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a minority educational institution’s right to appoint teachers is subject to the general rules for aided institutions or if they have autonomy in such appointments. CASE TYPE: Education Law, Minority Rights Case Name: Chandana Das (Malakar)

Supreme Court Upholds Minority Rights in Teacher Appointments: Chandana Das vs. State of West Bengal (25 September 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State Regulations for Minority B.Ed. Admissions: Andhra Kesari College of Education vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (25 September 2019)

/ Centralized Counseling, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 30(1), Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Minority Institutions, Sanjiv Khanna

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 885 Judges: Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna Can a state government regulate admissions to minority educational institutions to prevent misuse of minority status? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning B.Ed. admissions in Andhra Pradesh. The Court

Supreme Court Upholds State Regulations for Minority B.Ed. Admissions: Andhra Kesari College of Education vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (25 September 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 3J of National Highways Act: Upholds Solatium and Interest for Land Acquisition (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 31-C, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 23(1A) and (2), National Highways Act, 1956, National Highways Act, 1956 with Section 3A, National Highways Act, 1956 with Section 3D(2), National Highways Act, 1956 with Section 3J, R.F. Nariman, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 3J of National Highways Act: Upholds Solatium and Interest for Land Acquisition (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the denial of solatium and interest for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition, Constitutional Law Case Name: Union of India

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 3J of National Highways Act: Upholds Solatium and Interest for Land Acquisition (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds 25% Pre-Deposit for First Appeals under Punjab VAT Act: Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab (2019) INSC 793 (18 September 2019)

/ Appeals under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 with Section 62, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds 25% Pre-Deposit for First Appeals under Punjab VAT Act Date of the Judgment: 18 September 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 793 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J. Can a tax appeal be dismissed if the appellant doesn’t deposit a portion of the tax demanded? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question,

Supreme Court Upholds 25% Pre-Deposit for First Appeals under Punjab VAT Act: Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab (2019) INSC 793 (18 September 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Housing Board’s Allotment Price After Acceptance: Bihar State Housing Board vs. Radha Ballabh Health Care (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Contract Law, Estoppel, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Public Property Allotment, Specific Performance

Supreme Court Upholds Housing Board’s Allotment Price After Acceptance: Bihar State Housing Board vs. Radha Ballabh Health Care (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party can dispute an allotment price after accepting it multiple times and entering into a formal agreement. CASE TYPE: Real Estate/Contract Law Case Name: The Bihar State Housing Board & Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Housing Board’s Allotment Price After Acceptance: Bihar State Housing Board vs. Radha Ballabh Health Care (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses to Direct Parliament to Enact Standalone Law on Custodial Torture: Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Dinesh Maheshwari, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 330, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Refuses to Direct Parliament to Enact Standalone Law on Custodial Torture: Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can direct Parliament to enact a specific law. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Dr. Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India and Another Judgment Date: 05

Supreme Court Refuses to Direct Parliament to Enact Standalone Law on Custodial Torture: Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top