Fundamental Rights

Supreme Court Upholds Dual Pricing Policy for Diesel: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (2017)

/ Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fiscal Law, Fundamental Rights, Government Policy, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Subsidies

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Government of India’s decision to charge bulk consumers a non-subsidized, market-determined price for diesel is valid. CASE TYPE: Policy decision, Fiscal Law. Case Name: Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr. vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. [Judgment Date]: November 7, 2017 Date of the Judgment: November 7, 2017. Citation: […]

Supreme Court Upholds Dual Pricing Policy for Diesel: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Graduation Requirement for Forest Guard Promotions: Maharashtra Forest Guards vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, Promotions, R. Banumathi, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a rule requiring a graduate degree to participate in a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Maharashtra Forest Guards and Foresters Union vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others Judgment Date: November 3, 2017 Date

Supreme Court Strikes Down Graduation Requirement for Forest Guard Promotions: Maharashtra Forest Guards vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Sabarimala Temple Entry Ban on Women to be Examined by Larger Bench: Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2017)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Judges, R. Banumathi, Religious Denomination, Religious Law, Religious Practices

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prohibition on women of a specific age group from entering the Sabarimala Temple is discriminatory and violates fundamental rights. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Constitutional Law, Religious Law Case Name: Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. Judgment Date: 13 October 2017 Introduction Date of the

Sabarimala Temple Entry Ban on Women to be Examined by Larger Bench: Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overhauls Senior Advocate Designation Process: Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India (2017)

/ Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 16, Bar Council of India, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Senior Advocates

LEGAL ISSUE: Establishing a fair and transparent process for designating Senior Advocates. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Ms. Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India Through Secretary General And Ors. Judgment Date: 12 October 2017 Date of the Judgment: 12 October 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 837 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., Rohinton Fali Nariman,

Supreme Court Overhauls Senior Advocate Designation Process: Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overhauls Senior Advocate Designation Process: Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India (2017)

/ Advocates Act, 1961, Article 14, Constitution of India, Article 18, Constitution of India, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Legal Profession, Navin Sinha, Order IV, Supreme Court Rules 2013, Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules 2013, Section 16, Advocates Act, 1961, Senior Advocate Designation, Supreme Court Rules

Can the process of designating Senior Advocates be made more objective and transparent? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India, a landmark judgment that has reshaped the criteria and procedure for designating Senior Advocates. This case, decided on October 12, 2017, not only examined the

Supreme Court Overhauls Senior Advocate Designation Process: Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Unnatural Deaths in Prisons: A Call for Reform (2017)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 176(1A), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Deepak Gupta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Madan B. Lokur

LEGAL ISSUE: Examining the issue of unnatural deaths in prisons and the need for prison reforms. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons Judgment Date: 15 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 15 September 2017 Citation: W.P. (C) No. 406/2013 Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J. Can

Supreme Court Addresses Unnatural Deaths in Prisons: A Call for Reform (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Regulates Firework Sales to Curb Pollution in Delhi NCR: Arjun Gopal vs. Union of India (12 September 2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Deepak Gupta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, The Explosives Act, 1884, The Explosives Act, 1884 with Section 4(d), The Explosives Rules, 2008

LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing the right to a clean environment and the regulation of firework sales during festivals. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation concerning environmental pollution. Case Name: Arjun Gopal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 12 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2017 Citation: I.A. No. 52448 of 2017

Supreme Court Regulates Firework Sales to Curb Pollution in Delhi NCR: Arjun Gopal vs. Union of India (12 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds School Upgradation Based on Relaxation of Kerala Education Rules: Palathingal School Case (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21A, Deepak Gupta, Education Law, Education Law with Rule 2 of Chapter V of KER, Education Law with Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Kerala Education Rules, 1959, Madan B. Lokur

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government can relax the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER) to allow the upgradation of a school without following the prescribed procedure. CASE TYPE: Education Law Case Name: The Manager Palathingal M.L.P. School, Parappanangadi v. Sethumadhavan P.K. and Ors. [Judgment Date]: September 08, 2017 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Upholds School Upgradation Based on Relaxation of Kerala Education Rules: Palathingal School Case (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Invalidates Shiksha Mitra Appointments as Teachers: State of UP vs. Anand Kumar Yadav (25 July 2017)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 243G, Fundamental Rights, Judges, National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 with Section 23, Uday Umesh Lalit

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether unqualified teachers can be appointed for basic education, and whether the State can relax statutory qualifications. CASE TYPE: Education Law, Service Law Case Name: State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors. Judgment Date: 25 July 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 25 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 683

Supreme Court Invalidates Shiksha Mitra Appointments as Teachers: State of UP vs. Anand Kumar Yadav (25 July 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs equal treatment in Forest Guard regularization: Jagpal Singh Thakur vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Equal Treatment, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Regularization, Service Law

Can a government deny regularization to an employee for marrying a few days before the prescribed age, while granting it to others in similar situations? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a case concerning the regularization of a Forest Guard in Madhya Pradesh. The Court directed the concerned authority to consider the

Supreme Court directs equal treatment in Forest Guard regularization: Jagpal Singh Thakur vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Minority Institutions’ Right to Choose Headmasters: Manager, Corporate Educational Agency vs. James Mathew & Ors. (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 30(1), Fundamental Rights, Judges, Kurian Joseph, National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004, National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 with Section 11(f), R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether minority educational institutions have the absolute right to appoint a headmaster of their choice, even if it means overlooking senior teachers from the same community. CASE TYPE: Education Law, Minority Rights Case Name: The Manager, Corporate Educational Agency vs. James Mathew & Ors. Judgment Date: July 11, 2017 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Upholds Minority Institutions’ Right to Choose Headmasters: Manager, Corporate Educational Agency vs. James Mathew & Ors. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules on False Caste Certificates in Public Employment: FCI vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira (2017)

/ Appointments, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 142, D.Y. Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Jagdish Singh Khehar, Judges, Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 with Section 10, Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 with Section 11, Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 with Section 7, N.V. Ramana, Public Employment, Reservations, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Consequences of securing public employment with a false caste certificate. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Chairman and Managing Director, FCI & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors. Judgment Date: 6 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 6 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 628 Judges: Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI, N.V. Ramana, J,

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules on False Caste Certificates in Public Employment: FCI vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top