Constitutional Law

Supreme Court Remands Amendment of Plaint Case: Shivang Mathur vs. Sohan Lal (2017)

/ Amendment of Plaint, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

Date of the Judgment: November 13, 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi. This was a two-judge bench. Can a High Court summarily dismiss a case without addressing the merits? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the amendment of a plaint. The core […]

Supreme Court Remands Amendment of Plaint Case: Shivang Mathur vs. Sohan Lal (2017) Read Post »

Chief Justice’s Authority: Supreme Court Settles Roster Allocation in Judicial Accountability Case (2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Amitava Roy, Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 145, Dipak Misra, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, Supreme Court Rules, Supreme Court Rules with Order VI Rule 2

LEGAL ISSUE: Authority of the Chief Justice in allocating cases and constituting benches. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (Constitutional Law). Case Name: Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. Union of India and Another. Judgment Date: November 10, 2017 Can a two-judge bench direct the Chief Justice of India on how to constitute a bench?

Chief Justice’s Authority: Supreme Court Settles Roster Allocation in Judicial Accountability Case (2017) Read Post »

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

/ A.K. Sikri, Armed Forces Promotion, Armed Forces Tribunal, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Service Law, Service Law with Promotion Policy

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 »

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 »

Supreme Court clarifies calculation of future prospects in motor accident compensation: National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, Binding Precedent, Constitutional Law, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 163-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 168

Date of the Judgment: 31 October 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 950 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, JJ. This was a unanimous decision. How should courts calculate compensation for motor accident victims, especially concerning future income prospects? The Supreme Court of India, in this landmark judgment, addressed the

Supreme Court clarifies calculation of future prospects in motor accident compensation: National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Retrial in Amit Jethwa Murder Case, Cancels Bail of Accused: Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 386, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Date of the Judgment: October 30, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 942 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J. Can a trial be considered fair if most of the witnesses turn hostile due to intimidation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki vs. State of

Supreme Court Orders Retrial in Amit Jethwa Murder Case, Cancels Bail of Accused: Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat (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 Upholds Entry Tax on Imported Goods: State of Kerala vs. Fr. William Fernandez (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 246, Constitutional Law with Article 286, Entry Tax, Judges, Legislative Powers, Tax Law, Tax Law with Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999, Taxing Powers of State

Can states levy entry tax on goods imported from outside India? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a batch of appeals, including State of Kerala vs. Fr. William Fernandez. This judgment clarifies the legislative powers of states regarding entry tax on imported goods. The court held that states have the authority

Supreme Court Upholds Entry Tax on Imported Goods: State of Kerala vs. Fr. William Fernandez (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Insurance Claim Dispute: Anu Texchem Products vs. New India Assurance (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 137, Judges, Order XLVII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Supreme Court Rules

Can a court reconsider its own judgment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question when M/s Anu Texchem Products (P) Ltd sought a review of a previous order. This case involves a dispute over an insurance claim. The Supreme Court, composed of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, ultimately dismissed the

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Insurance Claim Dispute: Anu Texchem Products vs. New India Assurance (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top