Fundamental Rights

Supreme Court Modifies Compensation Recovery Order in Custodial Death Case: Amol Vitthalrao Kadu vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) INSC 1000 (10 December 2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Judges, R. Subhash Reddy, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Modifies Compensation Recovery Order in Custodial Death Case Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 1000 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J. Can an investigating officer be immediately held liable to pay compensation in a case of custodial death, even before their liability is determined? The […]

Supreme Court Modifies Compensation Recovery Order in Custodial Death Case: Amol Vitthalrao Kadu vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) INSC 1000 (10 December 2018) Read Post »

Witness Protection Scheme Mandated Nationwide by Supreme Court: Mahender Chawla & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (05 December 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 273, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 195A, Judges, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Mandates Witness Protection Scheme Nationwide Date of the Judgment: 05 December 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J. Can the criminal justice system function effectively when witnesses are afraid to testify? The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, addressed this critical question by mandating a

Witness Protection Scheme Mandated Nationwide by Supreme Court: Mahender Chawla & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (05 December 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Property Possession: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Property Disputes

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Property Possession: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for resolving private property disputes. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors. Judgment Date: 03 December

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Property Possession: Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Chhattisgarh Murder Case: Chhannu Lal Verma vs. State of Chhattisgarh (28 November 2018)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 354, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Deepak Gupta, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Offences Against Human Body, Sentencing

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Chhattisgarh Murder Case: Chhannu Lal Verma vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death penalty imposed on the appellant was justified under the “rarest of rare” doctrine. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Chhannu Lal Verma vs. The State of Chhattisgarh [Judgment Date]: 28 November 2018 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Chhattisgarh Murder Case: Chhannu Lal Verma vs. State of Chhattisgarh (28 November 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Railway’s Discretion in Filling Vacancies from Extra Panel: Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs. South East Central Railway (2018)

/ Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Deepak Gupta, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Railway Recruitment, Select Panel, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Railway’s Discretion in Filling Vacancies from Extra Panel: Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs. South East Central Railway (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate from the extra panel (20% over and above the vacancies) has a right to appointment if vacancies remain unfilled. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors.

Supreme Court Upholds Railway’s Discretion in Filling Vacancies from Extra Panel: Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs. South East Central Railway (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reopens Review Petitions in Death Penalty Case: Ambadas Laxman Shinde & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Reopens Review Petitions in Death Penalty Case Date of the Judgment: 31 October 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: Kurian Joseph J., A.M. Khanwilkar J., Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud J. Can a review petition be reopened in a death penalty case after it has been dismissed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this

Supreme Court Reopens Review Petitions in Death Penalty Case: Ambadas Laxman Shinde & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Regulates Firecracker Sales to Curb Pollution: Arjun Gopal vs. Union of India (23 October 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Air Pollution, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Constitutional Law with Article 21, Environmental Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Precautionary Principle

Supreme Court Regulates Firecracker Sales to Curb Pollution: Arjun Gopal vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing the right to a healthy environment with the right to trade and religious practices during festivals, specifically concerning the use of firecrackers. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (Environmental Law) Case Name: Arjun Gopal and Others vs. Union

Supreme Court Regulates Firecracker Sales to Curb Pollution: Arjun Gopal vs. Union of India (23 October 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court on Fair Consideration in State Largesse Disposal: Powai Panchsheel Co-op Hsg. Society vs. MHADA (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Disposal of State Largesse, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court on Fair Consideration in State Largesse Disposal: Powai Panchsheel Co-op Hsg. Society vs. MHADA (2018) Date of the Judgment: October 12, 2018 Citation: Powai Panchsheel Co-op Hsg. Society & Anr. vs. Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority (MHADA) & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7608 of 2009, (2018) INSC 944 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.,

Supreme Court on Fair Consideration in State Largesse Disposal: Powai Panchsheel Co-op Hsg. Society vs. MHADA (2018) Read Post »

Victim’s Right to Appeal: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 372 CrPC in Acquittal Cases (2018)

/ Appeals, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 378, Constitutional Law, Deepak Gupta, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Offences Against Human Body, S. Abdul Nazeer

Victim’s Right to Appeal: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 372 CrPC LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a victim has a right to appeal against an acquittal order and whether leave to appeal is required. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 12

Victim’s Right to Appeal: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 372 CrPC in Acquittal Cases (2018) Read Post »

Sabarimala Temple Entry: Supreme Court Upholds Women’s Right to Worship, Overrules Restrictions (2018) INSC 837 (28 September 2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 25, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 with Rule 3(b), Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 with Section 3, R.F. Nariman

Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 837 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI; A.M. Khanwilkar, J; R.F. Nariman, J; D.Y. Chandrachud, J; Indu Malhotra, J (Majority Opinion by Dipak Misra, CJI, concurring opinion by R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud, J; Dissenting Opinion by Indu Malhotra, J) Can a centuries-old tradition justify the exclusion

Sabarimala Temple Entry: Supreme Court Upholds Women’s Right to Worship, Overrules Restrictions (2018) INSC 837 (28 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Decriminalizes Adultery: Landmark Judgment on Section 497 IPC and Section 198 CrPC (27 September 2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 198, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 497, Indu Malhotra, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Decriminalizes Adultery: Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes adultery, and Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the procedure for filing a complaint, are constitutionally valid. CASE TYPE: Criminal, Constitutional Law Case Name: Joseph Shine vs.

Supreme Court Decriminalizes Adultery: Landmark Judgment on Section 497 IPC and Section 198 CrPC (27 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court to Reconsider Mosque’s Essentiality in Islam: M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das (27 September 2018)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 145, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Constitutional Law with Article 26, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Judges, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court to Reconsider Mosque’s Essentiality in Islam: M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das (27 September 2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a mosque is an essential part of the practice of Islam and if the right to worship at a particular place is an integral part of that right. CASE TYPE: Civil, Property Dispute, Religious Rights

Supreme Court to Reconsider Mosque’s Essentiality in Islam: M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das (27 September 2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top