Separation of Powers

Supreme Court Limits High Court Powers on Post-Retirement Benefits and Contempt: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Association of Retired Judges (2024)

/ Civil Contempt, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 229, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Criminal Contempt, Separation of Powers

Supreme Court Limits High Court Powers on Post-Retirement Benefits and Contempt: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Association of Retired Judges (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can direct the State Government to implement rules framed by the Chief Justice regarding post-retirement benefits for former judges and whether criminal contempt can be initiated against government […]

Supreme Court Limits High Court Powers on Post-Retirement Benefits and Contempt: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Association of Retired Judges (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns AFT order on policy formation for JAG (Air) promotion: Union of India vs. NK Sharma (2023)

/ Armed Forces Tribunal, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Separation of Powers, Service Law, Service Law with Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, Service Law with Section 27 of the Air Force Act, 1950

Supreme Court overturns AFT order on policy formation for JAG (Air) promotion: Union of India vs. NK Sharma (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) can direct the government to formulate a specific policy for promotions. CASE TYPE: Service Law (Armed Forces) Case Name: Union of India & Ors vs. Air Commodore NK

Supreme Court overturns AFT order on policy formation for JAG (Air) promotion: Union of India vs. NK Sharma (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Uniform Pay and Pension for District Judiciary: All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 50, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Judicial Pay Commission, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Separation of Powers, Service Conditions of Judges, Service Law, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Uniform Pay and Pension for District Judiciary: All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Ensuring uniform pay and service conditions for the district judiciary across India and upholding their financial independence. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Judicial Administration Case Name: All India Judges Association vs. Union of India &

Supreme Court Upholds Uniform Pay and Pension for District Judiciary: All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (2023) Read Post »

Kerala Arbitration Act Overruled: Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Power (2022)

/ Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 254, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Legislative Competence, Separation of Powers

Kerala Arbitration Act Overruled: Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Power (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Legislative competence of a State to enact laws impacting arbitration and encroachment on judicial power. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Case Name: The Secretary to Govt. of Kerala, Irrigation Department and Others vs. James Varghese and Others Judgment Date: 04 May 2022 Introduction

Kerala Arbitration Act Overruled: Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Power (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Tribunal Independence and Member Appointments: Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (27 November 2020)

/ Administrative Law, Administrative Law with Tribunal Rules 2020, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 323A, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, S. Ravindra Bhat, Separation of Powers, Tribunal Independence

Supreme Court Addresses Tribunal Independence and Member Appointments: Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: The constitutional validity of rules governing the selection, appointment, tenure, and service conditions of members of various tribunals. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law Case Name: Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India & Anr. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Addresses Tribunal Independence and Member Appointments: Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (27 November 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for District Judge Posts: Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi (2020)

/ Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 233, Direct Recruitment, Judges, Judicial Service, Promotion, S. Ravindra Bhat, Separation of Powers, Service Law, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for District Judge Posts: Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution of India regarding eligibility for District Judge appointments. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Dheeraj Mor vs. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Judgment Date: 19 February 2020 Can a judicial

Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for District Judge Posts: Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overrules Key Aspects of Finance Act 2017 on Tribunal Appointments and Powers: Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019) INSC 877 (13 November 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 110, Constitutional Law with Article 323A, Deepak Gupta, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Finance Act, 2017, Finance Act, 2017 with Section 184, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjiv Khanna, Separation of Powers, Tribunal Appointments

Supreme Court Overrules Key Aspects of Finance Act 2017 on Tribunal Appointments and Powers LEGAL ISSUE: Constitutionality of the Finance Act, 2017, specifically regarding tribunal appointments and powers. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Tribunal Law Case Name: Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 13 November 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Overrules Key Aspects of Finance Act 2017 on Tribunal Appointments and Powers: Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019) INSC 877 (13 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Revisits Atrocities Act Guidelines: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 41, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah, Relief and rehabilitation of victims, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Section 18, Separation of Powers

Supreme Court Revisits Atrocities Act Guidelines: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Review of guidelines regarding arrests under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law Case Name: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Judgment Date]: 01 October 2019

Supreme Court Revisits Atrocities Act Guidelines: Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment of Chairperson in State Electricity Regulatory Commissions: State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association (2018)

/ Constitutional Law, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 84, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 85, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 86, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Judicial Review, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Separation of Powers

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment of Chairperson in State Electricity Regulatory Commissions: State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association (2018) Date of the Judgment: April 12, 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 305 Judges: J. Chelameswar, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Can a State Electricity Regulatory Commission be headed by a non-judicial member? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court Clarifies Appointment of Chairperson in State Electricity Regulatory Commissions: State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Implementation of Lokpal Act Despite Pending Amendments

/ Constitutional Law, Judges, Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 with Section 4, Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 with Section 4(2), Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 with Section 62, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Rule of Law, Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 with Section 2, Separation of Powers

The Supreme Court of India has directed the government to implement the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. This order came despite the fact that the Act has some proposed amendments. The court emphasized that the existing law is workable. It also stated that the amendments are for better efficiency, not to fix fundamental flaws. LEGAL

Supreme Court Orders Implementation of Lokpal Act Despite Pending Amendments Read Post »

Scroll to Top