Constitutional Law

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Due to Lack of Opportunity to Be Heard: Charanjit Singh vs. State of J&K (08 September 2008)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 08 September 2008 The Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of whether a High Court can reverse a decision without providing the affected party an opportunity to be heard. This principle, rooted in natural justice, ensures fairness and equity in judicial proceedings. In Charanjit Singh vs. State of […]

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Due to Lack of Opportunity to Be Heard: Charanjit Singh vs. State of J&K (08 September 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Due to Lack of Notice in Criminal Proceedings: Neelakanteswaraswamy vs. M. Mahadevamurthy (2008)

Date of the Judgment: September 08, 2008 Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Aftab Alam, J. Did you know that failing to properly notify an accused person about a court hearing can lead to the entire legal proceeding being overturned? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical issue of procedural fairness in the case of

Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Due to Lack of Notice in Criminal Proceedings: Neelakanteswaraswamy vs. M. Mahadevamurthy (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of orders regarding Mahantship succession: Mahant Rajendra Das Vaishanav vs. Gopal Das & Ors. (2008)

Date of the Judgment: September 04, 2008 Citation: [Citation not available in the provided text] Judges: Justice R.V. Raveendran, Justice Dalveer Bhandari Can previous orders of the Supreme Court be interpreted as final directives on the succession of a religious office, even without a formal adjudication? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of orders regarding Mahantship succession: Mahant Rajendra Das Vaishanav vs. Gopal Das & Ors. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Amended Promotion Rules for UP Higher Judicial Service: V.K. Srivastava vs. Govt. of U.P. (2008)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 4th September 2008 The Supreme Court of India, in V.K. Srivastava & Ors. vs. Govt. of U.P. & Anr., addressed a critical question regarding the retrospective application of amended service rules concerning promotions within the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. This case highlights the conflict between established seniority rights and

Supreme Court Upholds Amended Promotion Rules for UP Higher Judicial Service: V.K. Srivastava vs. Govt. of U.P. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Review: Re-examining the Appointment of Teachers in Aided Institutions: State of West Bengal vs. Brahmo Samaj Education Society (31st July 2008)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 31st July 2008 The Supreme Court of India decided to review its earlier judgment in Brahmo Samaj Education Society & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 224. The central question revolved around the extent of autonomy that aided minority institutions have in appointing teachers, particularly

Supreme Court Review: Re-examining the Appointment of Teachers in Aided Institutions: State of West Bengal vs. Brahmo Samaj Education Society (31st July 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Regularization of MBBS Admission Under NRI Quota: Kunal Pankaj Kumar Shah vs. Justice R.J. Shah (Retd.) (28 July 2008)

Can a student, provisionally admitted to an MBBS course under the NRI quota, have their admission regularized if a seat becomes available? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Kunal Pankaj Kumar Shah vs. Justice R.J. Shah (Retd.) Admission Committee and Ors., where an MBBS student sought regularization of his

Supreme Court Directs Regularization of MBBS Admission Under NRI Quota: Kunal Pankaj Kumar Shah vs. Justice R.J. Shah (Retd.) (28 July 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows Vruddhashram appeals, directs inclusion in non-grant-aid list: Raja Shri Shivrai Pratishthan vs. State of Maharashtra (28 July 2008)

Date of the Judgment: 28 July 2008 Judges: B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi Can a government arbitrarily exclude established old age homes from a list of institutions selected for running Vruddhashrams (old age homes) on a non-grant-aid basis, especially when these homes have been operating satisfactorily? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a

Supreme Court allows Vruddhashram appeals, directs inclusion in non-grant-aid list: Raja Shri Shivrai Pratishthan vs. State of Maharashtra (28 July 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles seniority rules for Direct Recruits and Departmental Promotees in AFHQ Civil Services: AFHQ/ISOs SOs (DP) Association & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors (2008)

Date of the Judgment: 19th February 2008 Citation: Appeal (civil) 1384 of 2008 Judges: H. K. Sema, Altamas Kabir, Lokeshwar Singh Panta Can the government alter seniority rules to favor one group of employees over another? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a dispute between Direct Recruits (DRs) and Departmental Promotees (DPs) within the

Supreme Court settles seniority rules for Direct Recruits and Departmental Promotees in AFHQ Civil Services: AFHQ/ISOs SOs (DP) Association & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of candidates in waiting lists for public service appointments: U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Uday Kumar Upadhyaya (2008)

Date of the Judgment: 14th February 2008 Citation: [Citation details will be added when available] Judges: H.K. Sema and Markandey Katju, JJ. Does being on a waiting list for a government job guarantee you the position? The Supreme Court addressed this important question in a case involving the U.P. Public Service Commission. The court clarified

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of candidates in waiting lists for public service appointments: U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Uday Kumar Upadhyaya (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Policy Decision on Promotion Channels for Technical Staff: T.N. Electricity Board vs. T.N. Electricity Board Thozhilalar Aykkiya Sangam (2008)

Date of the Judgment: 14th February 2008 Citation: Appeal (civil) 1279 of 2008 Judges: A.K. Mathur and Aftab Alam Can a government organization change its service rules to alter the promotion channels for its employees? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) and its

Supreme Court Upholds Policy Decision on Promotion Channels for Technical Staff: T.N. Electricity Board vs. T.N. Electricity Board Thozhilalar Aykkiya Sangam (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside dismissal order after exoneration in departmental inquiry: Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2006)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 19th October 2006 Citation: Appeal (civil) 5226 of 2004 Judges: S.B. Sinha, J. and Dalveer Bhandari, J. Can an employee’s dismissal be upheld when they were later cleared of the charges in a departmental inquiry? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Prithipal Singh

Supreme Court sets aside dismissal order after exoneration in departmental inquiry: Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2006) Read Post »

Police Reforms: Supreme Court Directs Implementation of Key Recommendations in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006)

Date of the Judgment: 22nd September 2006 Citation: Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996 Judges: Y.K. Sabharwal, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan The Supreme Court of India addressed the critical need for police reforms due to the ineffectiveness of the existing police system, which was established by the Indian Police Act, 1861. The Court’s intervention came

Police Reforms: Supreme Court Directs Implementation of Key Recommendations in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006) Read Post »

Scroll to Top