Constitutional Law

Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Power to Address Lapses in Investigation During Bail Proceedings: Sanjay Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Bail, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 439, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Krishna Murari

Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Power to Address Lapses in Investigation During Bail Proceedings: Sanjay Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court, while hearing a bail application, can take cognizance of lapses in the investigation process and issue directions for departmental inquiry. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Sanjay Dubey […]

Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Power to Address Lapses in Investigation During Bail Proceedings: Sanjay Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies powers of Governor and Speaker in Maharashtra Political Crisis: Subhash Desai vs. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors. (2023) INSC 441 (11 May 2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 179(c), Constitutional Law with Article 191(2), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Election Law, Election Law with Disqualification of Members, Election Symbols Order 1968, Hima Kohli, Judges, Krishna Murari, MR Shah, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Tenth Schedule

Supreme Court Clarifies Disqualification and Governor Powers in Maharashtra Political Crisis Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 441 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI; MR Shah, J; Krishna Murari, J; Hima Kohli, J; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J Can a Governor direct a floor test based on internal party disputes? The Supreme

Supreme Court clarifies powers of Governor and Speaker in Maharashtra Political Crisis: Subhash Desai vs. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors. (2023) INSC 441 (11 May 2023) Read Post »

Governor’s Discretion and Anti-Defection Law: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Maharashtra Political Crisis (2023) INSC 516

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 163, Constitutional Law with Article 212, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Election Law, Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, Hima Kohli, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.R. Shah, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Tenth Schedule

Supreme Court Clarifies Governor’s Power and Tenth Schedule in Maharashtra Political Crisis LEGAL ISSUE: The extent of the Governor’s discretionary powers, the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, and the powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in cases of political party splits. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, specifically concerning the powers of

Governor’s Discretion and Anti-Defection Law: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Maharashtra Political Crisis (2023) INSC 516 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Challenge Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 131, Constitutional Law with Article 298, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 5, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 6, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 7, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Challenge Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a State can challenge the validity of a Central law under Article 131 of the Constitution. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Original Suit Case Name: State of Meghalaya vs. Union of India & Others Judgment Date: 11 May

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Challenge Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Delhi Government’s Control Over Services: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 239AA, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Hima Kohli, Judges, Krishna Murari, MR Shah, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Supreme Court Clarifies Delhi Government’s Control Over Services: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of legislative and executive powers of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) over “services.” CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Federalism Case Name: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India [Judgment

Supreme Court Clarifies Delhi Government’s Control Over Services: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction for Late Rent Payment Under Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Act: K. Chinnammal vs. L.R. Eknath (2023)

/ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Eviction of Tenants, Judges, Krishna Murari, Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 with Section 3, Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 with Section 4

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction for Late Rent Payment Under Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Act: K. Chinnammal vs. L.R. Eknath (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tenant can be evicted for failing to pay rent within the stipulated time despite a subsequent deposit, under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. CASE TYPE: Landlord-Tenant Dispute, Eviction,

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction for Late Rent Payment Under Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Act: K. Chinnammal vs. L.R. Eknath (2023) Read Post »

State’s Right to Challenge Central Laws: Supreme Court Addresses Maintainability of Meghalaya’s Suit on Lottery Regulations (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 131, Dinesh Maheshwari, Federalism, Judges, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 5, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 6, Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 with Section 7, Original Jurisdiction, Sanjay Kumar

Supreme Court Addresses State’s Right to Challenge Central Lottery Laws: Meghalaya vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a State can challenge the constitutional validity of a Central law under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Original Suit Case Name: State of Meghalaya vs. Union of India & Others

State’s Right to Challenge Central Laws: Supreme Court Addresses Maintainability of Meghalaya’s Suit on Lottery Regulations (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Central and State laws in Scheduled Areas: Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action vs. Union of India (2023)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Applicability of Laws, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Constitutional Law with Article 244, Fifth Schedule, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Rajesh Bindal, Scheduled Areas, Scheduled Areas with Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Central and State laws in Scheduled Areas: Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Central and State laws automatically apply to Scheduled Areas, or if they require specific notifications by the Governor. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, specifically concerning the Fifth Schedule of

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Central and State laws in Scheduled Areas: Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Laws in Scheduled Areas: Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action vs. Union of India (2023)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Applicability of Laws, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(e), Constitutional Law with Article 244, Fifth Schedule, Judges, Rajesh Bindal, Rights of Residents, Scheduled Areas

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Laws in Scheduled Areas: Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Central and State laws automatically apply to Scheduled Areas, or require specific notifications by the Governor. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, specifically concerning the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. Case Name: Adivasis

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Laws in Scheduled Areas: Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Acts: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 254(2), Dinesh Maheshwari, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Law, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Sanjay Kumar, Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Acts

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Acts: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Tamil Nadu land acquisition laws are discriminatory and arbitrary compared to the Central Land Acquisition Act. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Law Case Name: C.S. Gopalakrishnan ETC. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others [Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Acts: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 254, Dinesh Maheshwari, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Land Acquisition Law, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Sanjay Kumar, Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) Date of the Judgment: May 9, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 510 Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Sanjay Kumar, J. Can State laws for land acquisition, which are different from the central law, be valid? The Supreme Court of India addressed

Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Additional TDR for Recreation Ground Development: Godrej & Boyce vs. MCGM (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 300A, Development Control Regulations, Judges, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 with Section 126, Pankaj Mithal, Transferable Development Rights, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Denies Additional TDR for Recreation Ground Development: Godrej & Boyce vs. MCGM (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Entitlement to additional Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for developing a recreation ground. CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition/Town Planning Case Name: Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. [Judgment Date]: May 08,

Supreme Court Denies Additional TDR for Recreation Ground Development: Godrej & Boyce vs. MCGM (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top