Fundamental Rights

Supreme Court Orders Disaster Management Sub-Committees for Mullaperiyar Dam: Russel Joy vs. Union of India (2018)

Supreme Court Orders Disaster Management Sub-Committees for Mullaperiyar Dam: Russel Joy vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: The need for disaster management measures for the Mullaperiyar Dam. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Russel Joy vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 11 January 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 11 January […]

Supreme Court Orders Disaster Management Sub-Committees for Mullaperiyar Dam: Russel Joy vs. Union of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Petrol Pump Dealership: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Shashi Prabha Shukla (2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can direct a fresh dealership to be awarded to an individual whose original dealership was cancelled due to irregularities. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal Case Name: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Shashi Prabha Shukla & Anr. Judgment Date: 15 December 2017 Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2017

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Petrol Pump Dealership: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Shashi Prabha Shukla (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court mandates accessibility for disabled persons in public spaces: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India (2017) INSC 1087 (15 December 2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Ensuring accessibility for persons with disabilities in public spaces and transport. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning disability rights. Case Name: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India and Others. [Judgment Date]: 15 December 2017. Introduction Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1087 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok

Supreme Court mandates accessibility for disabled persons in public spaces: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India (2017) INSC 1087 (15 December 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the need for legislative backing for water charges: Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar (2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State can demand payment for water usage without explicit legal authorization. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Water Rights and Government Fees Case Name: Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. & Another vs. State of Bihar & Others [Judgment Date]: 15 December 2017 Can a state government demand payment for water used

Supreme Court clarifies the need for legislative backing for water charges: Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Search Engines to Curb Sex Selection Ads: Dr. Sabu Mathew George vs. Union of India (2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation and implementation of Section 22 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, specifically concerning the prohibition of advertisements related to sex selection on the internet. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Dr. Sabu Mathew George vs. Union of

Supreme Court Directs Search Engines to Curb Sex Selection Ads: Dr. Sabu Mathew George vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Beneficiaries in Public Interest Litigation on Slum Relocation: Sudama Singh & Ors. vs. Deepak Mohan Spolia & Ors. (2017) INSC 1038 (12 December 2017)

Date of the Judgment: 12 December 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1038 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Amitava Roy, J. Can a High Court limit the benefits of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) judgment to only the petitioners, excluding other affected parties named in the petition? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning

Supreme Court Clarifies Beneficiaries in Public Interest Litigation on Slum Relocation: Sudama Singh & Ors. vs. Deepak Mohan Spolia & Ors. (2017) INSC 1038 (12 December 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Originally Inhabitants of Assam” in NRC: Kamalakhya Dey Purkayastha vs. Union of India (2017)

Can the term “originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” create a superior class of citizens during the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment. This case clarifies that the NRC is solely based on citizenship, not on whether someone is an original inhabitant

Supreme Court Clarifies “Originally Inhabitants of Assam” in NRC: Kamalakhya Dey Purkayastha vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Implementation of Road Safety Norms: Dr. S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India (2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Dr. S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 30 November 2017 Date of the Judgment: 30 November 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1040 Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J. Can the

Supreme Court Directs Implementation of Road Safety Norms: Dr. S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Urges Law on Public Property Damage During Protests: Koshy Jacob vs. Union of India (28 November 2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Need for legislation to address damage to public property during agitations and protests. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation. Case Name: Koshy Jacob vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 28 November 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2017 Citation: Not Available (INSC) Judges: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday

Supreme Court Urges Law on Public Property Damage During Protests: Koshy Jacob vs. Union of India (28 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Declares Stringent Bail Conditions Under PMLA Unconstitutional: Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India (23 November 2017)

Can bail be denied based on the nature of a related offense, rather than the primary offense itself? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India. This case challenged the constitutional validity of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, which imposed

Supreme Court Declares Stringent Bail Conditions Under PMLA Unconstitutional: Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India (23 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies rules on termination for criminal history: Union of India vs. Amit Singh (2017)

Date of the Judgment: November 15, 2017 Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 18799/2017 (Arising from SLP(C) No.4757/2014) Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and R. Banumathi, J. Can an employer terminate an employee’s service based on a past criminal case, even if it was a minor issue resolved before employment? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question

Supreme Court clarifies rules on termination for criminal history: Union of India vs. Amit Singh (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds AFT Decision on Promotion Board Marks: Union of India vs. Maj. Gen. Manomoy Ganguly (2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was correct in interfering with the discretion of the Special Promotion Board (SPB) in awarding marks for promotion. CASE TYPE: Service Law – Armed Forces Promotion Case Name: Union of India and Others vs. Maj. Gen. Manomoy Ganguly, VSM Judgment Date: 10 November 2017 Can a promotion

Supreme Court Upholds AFT Decision on Promotion Board Marks: Union of India vs. Maj. Gen. Manomoy Ganguly (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top