Constitutional Law

Supreme Court Directs Action on Leprosy: Ensuring Dignity and Eradication (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 32, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Disability Assessment, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 49

Supreme Court Directs Action on Leprosy: Ensuring Dignity and Eradication (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Ensuring the rights and dignity of persons affected by leprosy and eradicating discrimination. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation Case Name: Pankaj Sinha vs. Union of India and Others Judgment Date: 14 September 2018 Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2018 Citation: Not […]

Supreme Court Directs Action on Leprosy: Ensuring Dignity and Eradication (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Compensation for Malicious Prosecution in ISRO Espionage Case: S. Nambi Narayanan vs. Siby Mathews (2018)

/ A. M. Khanwilkar, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 173(2), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Judges

Supreme Court Orders Compensation for Scientist in ISRO Espionage Case: S. Nambi Narayanan vs. Siby Mathews (2018) Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2018 Citation: S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, 2018 INSC 785 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A. M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Can a person be compensated for the mental agony

Supreme Court Orders Compensation for Malicious Prosecution in ISRO Espionage Case: S. Nambi Narayanan vs. Siby Mathews (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies seniority rules for Railway Engineers: Prabhat Ranjan Singh vs. R.K. Kushwaha (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 309, Deepak Gupta, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul Nazeer, Seniority Determination, Service Law, Service Rules

Supreme Court Clarifies Seniority Rules for Railway Engineers: Prabhat Ranjan Singh vs. R.K. Kushwaha (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Indian Railways is bound by the rules framed by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) regarding seniority, or can it formulate its own rules? And whether the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) has statutory force?

Supreme Court clarifies seniority rules for Railway Engineers: Prabhat Ranjan Singh vs. R.K. Kushwaha (2018) Read Post »

Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Decriminalizes Homosexuality in India: Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 377, Indu Malhotra, Judges, R.F. Nariman

LEGAL ISSUE: Constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically concerning consensual same-sex relations between adults. CASE TYPE: Criminal, Constitutional Law Case Name: Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs. Union of India [Judgment Date]: 6 September 2018 Date of the Judgment: 6 September 2018 Citation: (2018) 10 SCC 1 Judges: Dipak

Landmark Supreme Court Judgment Decriminalizes Homosexuality in India: Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Army Postings: ASC Personnel in Operational Roles (2018)

/ Armed Forces Act, Army Service Corps, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Operational Postings, Posting of Personnel, Armed Forces Act, R.F. Nariman, Service Law, Transfer Policy

Supreme Court Upholds Army Postings: ASC Personnel in Operational Roles (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether personnel of the Army Service Corps (ASC) can be posted to operational areas. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Maj. Amod Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr. Judgment Date: September 6, 2018 Date of the Judgment: September 6, 2018 Citation:

Supreme Court Upholds Army Postings: ASC Personnel in Operational Roles (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies scope of revisional powers in criminal cases: Menoka Malik vs. State of West Bengal (28 August 2018)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 401, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 307, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana, Offences Against Human Body, Revisional Jurisdiction

Supreme Court on Revisional Powers and Evidence Appraisal in Criminal Cases Date of the Judgment: 28 August 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 742 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. Can a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, overturn an acquittal by a lower court when material evidence was overlooked? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court clarifies scope of revisional powers in criminal cases: Menoka Malik vs. State of West Bengal (28 August 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Candidate After Re-evaluation of Marks in State Service Exam: Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission (2018)

/ Appointment, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Intra-Court Appeal, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Seniority, Service Law

Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Candidate After Re-evaluation of Marks in State Service Exam: Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate is entitled to appointment after re-evaluation of marks in a state service examination. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public

Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Candidate After Re-evaluation of Marks in State Service Exam: Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles interpretation of tax exemption notifications: Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar (30 July 2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 265, Customs Law, Customs Law with Section 25 of the Customs Act, Judges, Legislative Intent, Literal Rule, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi, S. Abdul Nazeer, Statutory Interpretation, Tax Exemption

Supreme Court Clarifies Tax Exemption Interpretation: Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) Date of the Judgment: 30 July 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 645 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Ranjan Gogoi, J., R. Banumathi, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J. The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical question regarding the interpretation of

Supreme Court settles interpretation of tax exemption notifications: Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar (30 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Due to Irretrievable Breakdown: Manju Kumari Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh (25 July 2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Divorce, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Due to Irretrievable Breakdown: Manju Kumari Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a marriage can be dissolved due to irretrievable breakdown when the parties have been living separately for a long time and there is no possibility of reconciliation. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Law Case Name: Manju Kumari Singh

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Due to Irretrievable Breakdown: Manju Kumari Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh (25 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Protest but Regulates Demonstrations: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India (23 July 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 144, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Protest but Regulates Demonstrations: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Balancing the right to protest with public order and the rights of residents. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation, Constitutional Law Case Name: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. The Union of India & Anr. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Protest but Regulates Demonstrations: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India (23 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Mother to Keep Child in India, Overturns Delhi High Court Order

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Constitutional Law with Article 226, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 26, Judges

Supreme Court Allows Mother to Keep Child in India, Overturns Delhi High Court Order LEGAL ISSUE: International Child Custody and Habeas Corpus; CASE TYPE: Family Law; Case Name: Mrs. Kanika Goel vs. State of Delhi and Anr.; Judgment Date: 20 July 2018 Date of the Judgment: 20 July 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 647 Judges: Dipak

Supreme Court Allows Mother to Keep Child in India, Overturns Delhi High Court Order Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirement for Reader Post: University of Kerala vs. Saiful Islam (2018)

/ Appointment of Reader, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Retirement Benefits, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirement for Reader Post: University of Kerala vs. Saiful Islam (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the experience required for appointment to the post of Reader should be pre-Ph.D. or post-Ph.D., where Ph.D. is an essential qualification. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: University of Kerala & Anr. vs. Saiful Islam.A. & Ors.

Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirement for Reader Post: University of Kerala vs. Saiful Islam (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top