Fundamental Rights Archives

Private Agreements Cannot Oust High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Decision in Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India (29 July 2019)

July 29, 2019 / Agreements in Restraint of Legal Proceedings, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contract Law, Contract Law with Section 28, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Judicial Review

Supreme Court Rules Private Agreements Cannot Oust Writ Jurisdiction: Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India (2019) Date of the Judgment: 29 July 2019 Citation: [Not Available in the source] Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J Can a private agreement between parties restrict the constitutional power of a High Court to […]

Private Agreements Cannot Oust High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Decision in Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India (29 July 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Service of Documents in COFEPOSA Detentions: Union of India vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019)

July 18, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with Section 3, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 22(5), Fundamental Rights, Judges, Preventive Detention, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Clarifies Service of Documents in COFEPOSA Detentions: Union of India vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the relied upon documents must be served simultaneously with the detention order and grounds of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). CASE TYPE: Preventive Detention Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Service of Documents in COFEPOSA Detentions: Union of India vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Invalidates Differential Pension Based on Cut-off Date: All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur (2019)

July 11, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pension Law, Service Law

Supreme Court Invalidates Differential Pension Based on Cut-off Date: All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a cut-off date can be used to create two classes of pensioners for differential pension benefits, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Pension Law Case Name: All Manipur Pensioners

Supreme Court Invalidates Differential Pension Based on Cut-off Date: All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court permits Airman to continue Bank Job despite procedural lapse: Amit Kumar Roy vs. Union of India (2019)

July 3, 2019 / Armed Forces, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Constitutional Law with Article 33, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Service Law, Service Law with Air Force Act 1950, Service Law with Air Force Order 14/2008

Supreme Court permits Airman to continue Bank Job despite procedural lapse: Amit Kumar Roy vs. Union of India (2019) Date of the Judgment: 03 July 2019 Citation: Amit Kumar Roy vs. Union of India & Ors, Civil Appeal Nos 4605 – 4606 of 2019 (D No 27372/2015) Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant

Supreme Court permits Airman to continue Bank Job despite procedural lapse: Amit Kumar Roy vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay for Bihar Teachers Based on Recruitment Method: State of Bihar vs. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (2019) INSC 4862 (10 May 2019)

May 10, 2019 / Abhay Manohar Sapre, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21A, Education Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Right to Education Act, 2009, State Education Policy, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay for Bihar Teachers Based on Recruitment Method Date of the Judgment: 10 May 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 4862 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. (Majority Opinion by Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Concurring Opinion by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.) Can teachers who were appointed through local bodies claim

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay for Bihar Teachers Based on Recruitment Method: State of Bihar vs. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (2019) INSC 4862 (10 May 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Reservation Act 2018: B.K. Pavitra II (May 10, 2019)

May 10, 2019 / Consequential Seniority, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Constitutional Law with Article 335, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Reservation in Promotions, Seniority Rules, Service Law, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Reservation Act 2018: B.K. Pavitra II LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority Act, 2018. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Reservation in Promotions. Case Name: B.K. Pavitra and Ors. vs. The Union of India and Ors. Judgment Date: May 10, 2019 Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2019 Citation: Not

Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Reservation Act 2018: B.K. Pavitra II (May 10, 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the right to representation for wilful defaulters in banking cases (08 May 2019)

May 8, 2019 / Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 30, Banking Law, Banking Law with RBI Circulars, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Fundamental Rights, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Vineet Saran, Wilful Defaulters

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Wilful Defaulters: Representation and Procedure LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person declared a wilful defaulter by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is entitled to legal representation during the process. CASE TYPE: Banking Law, specifically concerning wilful defaulters. Case Name: State Bank of India vs. M/s. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd. &

Supreme Court clarifies the right to representation for wilful defaulters in banking cases (08 May 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies reservation benefits for migrant Scheduled Tribes in Union Territories: Director Transport Department vs. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel (2019)

May 7, 2019 / Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 341, Constitutional Law with Article 342, Fundamental Rights, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah, Recruitment, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies reservation benefits for migrant Scheduled Tribes in Union Territories: Director Transport Department vs. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel (2019) Date of the Judgment: May 7, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 463 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J. Can a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in one state claim reservation benefits in a

Supreme Court clarifies reservation benefits for migrant Scheduled Tribes in Union Territories: Director Transport Department vs. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Stringent Penalties under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act for Record-Keeping Anomalies: Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India vs. Union of India (2019)

May 3, 2019 / Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Offences and Penalties, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 with Section 23, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 with Section 4, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Stringent Penalties under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act for Record-Keeping Anomalies: Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether stringent penalties for minor clerical errors in record-keeping under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 are constitutional. CASE

Supreme Court Invalidates Compulsory Amalgamation under Section 396 of the Companies Act: 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 441

April 30, 2019 / Amalgamation, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 396, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Invalidates Compulsory Amalgamation under Section 396 of the Companies Act: 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 441 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a compulsory amalgamation order under Section 396 of the Companies Act, 1956, is valid when it does not adequately compensate the transferor company and its shareholders, and when the

Supreme Court Invalidates Compulsory Amalgamation under Section 396 of the Companies Act: 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 441 Read Post »

Mental Illness and Sentencing: Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty in Landmark Decision (12 April 2019)

April 12, 2019 / Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 235(2), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N. V. Ramana, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment for Mentally Ill Convict Date of the Judgment: 12 April 2019 Citation: Not Available Judges: N. V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Indira Banerjee, J. Can a person with a mental illness be executed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent

Mental Illness and Sentencing: Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty in Landmark Decision (12 April 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Special Officer for Idol Theft Cases: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Elephant G. Rajendran (2019)

April 12, 2019 / Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Fundamental Rights, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Police Act, 1861, Police Act, 1861 with Section 3, Police Act, 1861 with Section 4

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Special Officer for Idol Theft Cases: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Elephant G. Rajendran (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can appoint a retired police officer to head a Special Investigation Team (SIT). CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. Elephant G. Rajendran

Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Special Officer for Idol Theft Cases: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Elephant G. Rajendran (2019) Read Post »