Constitutional Law

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

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Judges, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 41, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 42, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 46

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)

/ Bihar Irrigation Act, 1876, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 265, Constitutional Law with Article 366, Fundamental Rights, Government Fees, J. Chelameswar, Judges, S. Abdul Nazeer, State Legislation, Water Law, Water Rights

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)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(a), D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Judges, The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 with Section 22, The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 with Section 26

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 Orders Appointment of Excise Inspectors: Manish Kathuria vs. State of Punjab (2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Service Law

Can a court use its special powers to ensure justice when there are available government job vacancies? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving delayed appointments for the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector. The court used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the State of

Supreme Court Orders Appointment of Excise Inspectors: Manish Kathuria vs. State of Punjab (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)

/ Amitava Roy, Beneficiaries in PIL, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Public Interest Litigation

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 Overturns Delhi High Court in Child Custody Battle: Prateek Gupta vs. Shilpi Gupta (2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Child Custody, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dipak Misra, Family Law, Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 with Section 7(b), Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the principle of comity of courts and the doctrines of “intimate contact” and “closest concern” should take precedence over the welfare of the child in international child custody disputes. CASE TYPE: Family Law, Child Custody, Habeas Corpus Case Name: Prateek Gupta vs. Shilpi Gupta & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 6 December 2017 Introduction

Supreme Court Overturns Delhi High Court in Child Custody Battle: Prateek Gupta vs. Shilpi Gupta (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Finality to Land Acquisition: H.N. Jagannath vs. State of Karnataka (2017)

/ Arun Mishra, Bangalore Development Authority Act, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 9, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, Land Acquisition, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 16(2), Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a civil court can decide on the validity of land acquisition notifications and proceedings. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Case Name: H. N. Jagannath & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. Judgment Date: 06 December 2017 Date of the Judgment: 06 December 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 1049 Judges: Arun Mishra, J., Mohan

Supreme Court Restores Finality to Land Acquisition: H.N. Jagannath vs. State of Karnataka (2017) Read Post »

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

/ Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issues of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, Citizenship Law, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Judges, National Register of Citizens (NRC), Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman

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 quick disposal of Sub-Inspector selection case: State of West Bengal vs. Basudev Das (2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Selection Process, Service Law, Service Law with Expedited Hearing

Can a selection process be set aside due to grievances about height discrimination? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the selection of Sub-Inspectors in West Bengal. The court did not delve into the merits of the case but instead directed the High Court to expedite the hearing of

Supreme Court directs quick disposal of Sub-Inspector selection case: State of West Bengal vs. Basudev Das (2017) Read Post »

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

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Deepak Gupta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, K. S. Radhakrishnan, Madan B. Lokur, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 215

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 sets aside High Court order on personal property auction in housing dispute: Vinod Goyal vs. Vishranti City Residents Welfare Society (2017) INSC 1019 (29 November 2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Contract Law, Contract Law with Allotment Agreement, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Principles of Natural Justice, R. Banumathi

Can a High Court order the auction of personal properties of partners in a developer firm to recover dues for a housing project? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, concerning a dispute over infrastructure development in a residential colony. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, which

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order on personal property auction in housing dispute: Vinod Goyal vs. Vishranti City Residents Welfare Society (2017) INSC 1019 (29 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Against “Padmavati” Release: Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors. (28 November 2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Cinematograph Act, 1952, Cinematograph Act, 1952 with Section 7, Constitutional Law, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 with Section 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 295, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 295A, Judges

Can a court interfere with a film’s release before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) makes a decision? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the film “Padmavati.” The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of the CBFC’s role and the freedom of artistic expression.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Against “Padmavati” Release: Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors. (28 November 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top