Citation : 2024 INSC 831 Date of judgment : 5 November 2024 Court : Supreme Court Of India Petitioner : Anjum Kadari & Anr Respondent : Union of …
Case Comment Anjum Kadari & Anr Union of India & Ors Read More »
CASE DETAILS Judgement Date: 9th September 2024 Court: Supreme Court of India Appellant: Abhishek Banerjee Bench: J. Bela M.Trivedi, J. Satish Chandra Sharma INTRODUCTION The Abhishek Banerjee Vs Directorate Of Enforcement gives a dynamic perspective about the use of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) while marking its significance under the impositions and restrictions …
ABHISHEK BANERJEE VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 Read More »
Case Title Jaggo V. Union of India (2024 INSC 1034) Court Supreme Court of India Date of Judgement 20th December 2024 Bench HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE Petitioner Jaggo Respondent Union of India Facts of the Case The case involved four individuals who had been working for the Central …
INTRODUCTION: The Supreme Court’s decision in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2024) & SCC 1, represents a landmark constitutional adjudication that fundamentally reshapes India’s mining taxation landscape. This nine-judge Constitution Bench ruling delivered by an 8:1 majority addresses a decade-old question relating to the federal distribution of the taxation powers …
Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay s. Oka, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol Date of Judgment: 19 October 2023 Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1730 of 2012 Background: The case of Indrakunwar vs. State of Chhattisgarh arose out of a complex intersection of societal prejudice, procedural oversight, and lack of scientific investigation. …
Case Comment: Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) Read More »
1. Abstract: Let’s be real Nirav Modi and Vijay Mallya aren’t just names that pop up in news tickers; they’re practically poster figures for everything that’s gone sideways with India’s banking and regulatory circus. Modi cooked up this wild ₹14,000 crore scam using fake Letters of Undertaking from Punjab National Bank. Like, how does that …
Nirav Modi & Vijay Mallya Cases: Lessons for Indian Regulatory Mechanisms Read More »
Facts: The appellants, Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others, claimed ownership and possession of a property based on adverse possession. They asserted that they have been in continuous, uninterrupted, and exclusive possession for over 50 years. A suit was filed under Article 65 of the Limitations Act, 1963, seeking declaration of ownership based on such possession. …
Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. vs Manjit Kaur & Ors. 2019 8 SCC 729 Read More »
INTRODUCTION: According Article 142 of the ‘Indian Constitution’ empowers the apex court i.e Supreme Court to administer complete justice in any matter. Concurrently, Section 5 of the ‘Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996’ lays down that the court should refrain from interference unless permitted by the Act. This provision is designed to protect the autonomy and …
Understanding the case of ‘Gayatri Balasamy vs ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited'[1] Read More »
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1598 of 2023 Court: Supreme Court of IndiaBench: Justice Vikram NathDate of Judgment: November 1, 2023 FACTS ISSUES RAISED CONTENTION Appellant’s Contention The appellant (Shakeel Ahmed) presented three main arguments: Respondent’s Contention The respondent (Syed Akhlaq Hussain) advanced two primary arguments: RATIONALE The supreme Court primarily found that the statutory provisions governing property …
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwerbhai Modi Citation: 2023 (SC) 598 Court: Honourable Supreme Court of India Date of Final Judgment: August 4th, 2023 Bench: 3 Judge Bench, (Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice B.R. Gavai) Legal Domains: Criminal law Defamation, Constitutional law Freedom of speech, Electoral law Disqualification of Members of …
CASE COMMENT Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwerbhai Modi Read More »
All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025): Bridging the Gap or Building Barriers ABSTRACT: In the judgement of All India Judges Association versus Union of India, 2025[1] benched by honorable Chief Justice B.R.Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandranon May 20th 2025 marked a pivotal moment in Judicial reform restoring …
Court– supreme court of India (civil original Jurisdiction ) Bench – N.V. Ramana , R. Subhas Reddy and B.R. Gavai. JJ. Citation – AIR 2020 SC 1308, para 20 Date of Judgement – 10th January 2020 1. Facts of the Case The Indian government’s Ministry of Home Affairs issued an order for a total communication …
Name of case – Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India, 2020 Read More »
FACTS In this issue, the Tamil Nadu government and the governor are at odds over the governor’s decision to not sign off on ten bills that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had enacted. Several significant laws addressing a range of public issues were passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly following the proper legislative process. …
CASE – State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481) Read More »
FACTS OF THE CASE ISSUES RAISED 1. Whether mere possession or viewing of child sexual exploitative and abuse material (CSEAM) without the intention to transmit, publish, or share it constitutes an offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act? 2. Whether Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalizes publishing or transmitting child …
CASE SUMMARY: Citation: 2022 SSC Online SC 825 Civil Appeal No. 7598 of 2021 Date of Judgement: 11th July 2022 Bench comprises: S.K. Kaul and M.M Sundresh Petitioner: Satendra Kumar Antil Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation INTRODUCTION The landmark case of Satendra Kumar Antil V. CBI addressed the crucial aspects of Arrest, Bail, and criminal …
1. FACTS The genesis of the current case in history goes back to a chain of Right to Information (RTI) requests made by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, a well-known RTI activist, for information about the working and administration of the Supreme Court of India. Agrawal’s RTIs under the Right to Information Act, 2005,[2] requested access to …
Citation: (2023) INSC 1051 Court: Supreme Court of India Counsel for Petitioner: Hiroo Advani, Divyakant Lahoti Counsel for Defendant: Dheeraj Nair Bench: D.Y Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy, P.S Narsimha, J.B Pardiwala, Monoj Misra, JJ. Date of Judgment: December 06, 2023 Facts: Issues Raised Contentions Petitioner (Cox and Kings Ltd.) Respondent (SAP SE) Rationale The Supreme Court of …
Case Comment- Cox and Kings Ltd. vs SAP India Pvt Ltd., (2023) Read More »
Case Name: Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.,2024 SCC OnLine SC 426 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4602 of 2024 Decided on: 22nd March 2024 Bench: Before Dr. D Y Chandrachud, C.J. AND J.B.Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra,JJ. FACTS The ex parte injunction was issued without sufficient justification. The …
Title: Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) – Supreme Court of India 1. FACTS On 12th April 2014, a tragic road accident occurred in Delhi at about 7 AM. Vinod and his wife Poonam, a young couple in their late twenties, were riding a motorcycle when they were hit by a Santro …
Citation: C.A. No. 2526/2025 (SC, India). Court: Supreme Court Of India Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 2526 Of 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No. 20178 OF 2022) Appellant: K. Umadevi Respondent: Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Date of Judgment: May 23, 2025 …
Case Comment: K. Umadevi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu Read More »
FACTS Gender discrimination is still a big problem in India, where women are often treated as less important than men. This case directly relates to that issue, as it deals with the unequal treatment of women in the Indian Army. The matter began in 2003, when Babita Puniya, the woman involved in this case, filed …
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE V. BABITA PUNIYA AND ORS Read More »
SLP (Crl) NO. 3450 of 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 711 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta Date of Judgment: May 15, 2025 Introduction- The case of Hansura Bai & Anr v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr (2025 INSC 711) is a reminder of the well-established problem of custodial violence in …
Case Commentary: Hansura Bai & ANR v. State of Madhya Pradesh & ANR [2025] Read More »
Introduction Case Name – All India Judges Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2025) Citation– All India Judges Ass’n v. Union of India, (2025) 4 S.C.C. 501 (India). Petitioners– All India Judges Association (AIJA) Respondents– Union of India (UOI) Date of Judgment- 20th May 2025 Court- Supreme Court Of India Bench– Justice B.R. …
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA (2025) Read More »
Can love be forced? Can betrayal be jailed? In India, until 2018 — yes. And that’s the real crime. ABSTRACT: For over 150 years, adultery was not just a moral failing — it was a criminal offence under Section 497 [1]of the Indian Penal Code. But what was seen as the ‘protection of the sanctity …
Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 520 Court: Supreme Court of India Case No.WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 306/2019 Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud Date of judgement: 11 April 2019 Advocate Sanjay Parikh appeared for the appellant/petitioners. The main contentions were: Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the respondents. The main contentions …
CASE COMMENT: INDIBILITY CREATIVE PVT. LTD. & ORS. V. GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL Read More »
Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 653) 1. Facts 2. Issues 3. Contention 3.1 Petitioner’s Arguments 3.2 Respondent (State) Argument 4. Rationale of Supreme Court Decision A bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala largely favoured the petitioner, laying down important legal doctrines and policy directions: 4.1 …
Case Comment – Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 653) Read More »
Facts The case A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024, concerns a 14-year-old girl (‘X’) who became pregnant following a rape in September 2023. Due to trauma and fear of stigma, she did not disclose the incident or the pregnancy until she experienced irregular menstruation. When she informed her parents, she …
A(Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr (2024) INSC 371 Read More »
Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1010 Date of the Judgement: 2nd May 2025 Authority: Supreme Court of India Bench: The Bench comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma FACTS: ISSUES: CONTENTIONS BY APPELLANTS: CONTENTIONS BY RESPONDENT: RATIONALE: Ratio Decidendi: Obiter Dicta: DEFECTS OF LAW: INFERENCE: The Supreme Court’s ruling in the …
Case Comment: Kalyani Transco vs M/S Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd Read More »
Citation: (2021) 5CC ONLINE All 255 Court: Allahabad High Court Date: March 22, 2021 The March 2021 decision by the Allahabad High Court marked a critical moment in the discourse on judicial accessibility in India. This marked a significant shift in how the judiciary addresses accessibility with far-reaching implications for the judicial system. For all the fancy talk …
1.FACTS: In July 2021, a global investigative report called the Pegasus Project was published by a group of media houses, coordinated by the non-profit group Forbidden Stories along with Amnesty International. The project involved 17 news organizations worldwide, including The Wire from India. This report brought to light the possible misuse of Pegasus spyware across …
Decided : March 29,2019 Bench : Justice N.V Raman Justice M.M. Shantanagoudar Justice Indira Banarjee Facts: Appellant Pattu Rajan, who is recognized as the founder of the renowned Saravana Bhawan hotels in Tamil Nadu, was embroiled in a controversial and heinous case that captured public attention. Allegedly, Rajan developed an inappropriate attraction toward Jeevajyoti, the …
Pattu Rajan & Ors vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) Read More »
Facts The case of Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala is one of disagreement between freedom of the press and the shielding offered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter “SC/ST Act”). Appellant Shajan Skaria is a journalist as well as the editor of an online news channel, “Marunadan Malayali.” On …
INTRODUCTION Name of the Case: Jyostnamayee Mishra vs. State of Odisha and Others Citation: MANU/SC/0087/2025; AIR 2025 SC 676 Court: Supreme Court of India Decided on: 20th January 2025 Bench: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal Case Type: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13984 of 2023 Area of Law: Service Matters – Promotion under Government …
Title: Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) – Supreme Court of India 1. FACTS On 12th April 2014, a tragic road accident occurred in Delhi at about 7 AM. Vinod and his wife Poonam, a young couple in their late twenties, were riding a motorcycle when they were hit by a Santro …
All India Judges Association vs Union Of India(2025) Citation: 2025 INSC 735 Date of Judgement: 19th May 2025 Bench: Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran Petitioner: All India Judges Association and Ors. Respondent: Union of India and Ors. FACTS All India Judges Association vs Union of India …
Case Comment All India Judges Association vs Union Of India(2025) Read More »
Anjum Kadari & Anr. …Appellants Versus Union of India & Ors. …
CASE COMMENTARY Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Read More »
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS STATE OF GOVERNOR (2025) CITATIONS : 2025 SCC Online SC 770; 2025 INSC 481 (India). DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 8th APRIl,2022 BENCH. : Justice J. B. Pardiwala , …
CASE TITLE STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS STATE OF GOVERNOR (2025) Read More »
Title: Vihaan Kumar V State of Haryana Facts: Vihaan Kumar, a respected entrepreneur and resident of Gurugram, Haryana, was the central figure in a case that brought to the forefront serious concerns about procedural safeguards in criminal law. Known for running a mid-sized financial consultancy firm, Vihaan was a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal …
TASK 2: CASE COMMENTARY Vihaan Kumar V State of Haryana Read More »
Title of case: X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Welfare Department and Anr; date of judgment is 29th September (2022) 10 SCC 1 FACTS OF THE CASE The case of X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Welfare Department & Anr. Centers on the reproductive rights of an unmarried woman in India. Specifically, it addresses her …
BASED ON SECTION 4 OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002. ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION. YEAR OF JUDGMENT. 2022. INTRODUCTION. Abuse of dominant position happens when a company or group of companies that holds a strong influence over a particular market uses that power in a way that harms competition. This could include actions like blocking the …
CASE COMMENT GOOGLE LLC VS. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (2022). Read More »
ABSTRACT The right to protest is a one of the important aspects of a vibrant democracy. It provides the various rights to the citizens of the country to defend themselves against the unfair public policies, injustices or government actions by coming together for a common cause. In the context of the recent protests like farmers …
RIGHT TO PROTEST VS PUBLIC ORDER – SC RULINGS POST-FARMERS’ AND CAA PROTESTS. Read More »
ABOUT THE CASE : Case Title -Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., Citation – 2025 INSC 162 Jurisdiction – Constitutional ( Writ )Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 Date of The Judgement -7th February 2025 Bench – Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh Petitioner – VIHAAN KUMAR Respondent …
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 INSC 162 Read More »
In the Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal 407 of 2021 Decided on 13 April, 2021 Appellant: State of Rajasthan Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kashyap Bench: Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice M. R. Shah Introduction The case State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap is about an appeal that is filed by the State because the …
State of Rajasthan vs Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) Read More »
FACTS The Internet & Mobile Association of India (IMAI ), which represents several cryptocurrency exchanges & investors who filed a writ petition before the supreme court of India challenging the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on April 6, 2018. This circular directed all entities regulated by the RBI to refrain from …
INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (2020) Read More »
FACTSThis case involves a legal challenge to the appointment of two people, Vivek Kaisth and Akansha Dogra, as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in Himachal Pradesh. They were selected in the 2013 Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services Examination. The issue was whether their appointments were valid under the Constitution. On 1 February 2013, the Himachal Pradesh Public …
CASE COMMENTVivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2023) Read More »
CASE CITATION- 2022 SCC Online SCC 1321 CASE TYPE- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FACTS OF THE CASE The petitioner is a 24-year-old unmarried woman who was a resident of Manipur and approached the Delhi High Court with the request to terminate her pregnancy, which was at 24 weeks, under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 …
Citation: Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 (India). Court: Supreme Court of India (Three-Judge Bench) Judges: Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer, and M.R. Shah, JJ. Date of Judgment: August 11, 2020 1. FACTS The case of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma & Ors was an analysis of the right of Hindu daughters …
Case Note: Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. Read More »
(Special Leave Petition – Challenge to OBC Reservation in Local Authorities) FACTS OF THE CASE In the landmark case of Vikas Kishan Rao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra, multiple writ petitions were submitted before the judiciary contesting the constitutional validity of Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. The challenge …
VIKAS KISHAN RAO GAWALI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASTRA, 2021 Read More »
Citation: (2023) SCC Online SC 1245 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: A.S. Bopanna & P.V. Sanjay Kumar, JJ. Date of Judgment: 3 October 2023 1. FACTS • Background FIR (April 2023): • Pankaj Bansal Not Mentioned in FIR: • First ECIR – IREO Investigation: •ED Summons and Arrests in 2023: • Second ECIR Filed by ED: • Summons …
Case Commentary on Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Read More »
Facts The M Siddiq (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives v. Mahant Suresh Das & Others (2019), widely recognized as the Ayodhya Dispute or Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Case, concerned a 2.77-acre plot in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, held sacred by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Rama and by Muslims as the site of the Babri Masjid, a …
M Siddiq (D) THR LRS v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors (2019) case comment Read More »
BENCH: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Subhash Reddy JUDGEMENT:10 January 2020 FACTS OF THE CASE In January 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir Home Department released a warning urging tourists to shorten their stay in the state and organize for a safe return. The administration then issued directives for the state’s offices and …
CASE COMMENTARY ON ANURADHA BHASIN V UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2020 SC 1308 Read More »
Facts The medical trust, which was the appellant, bought 29 flats from buildings developed by Respondent No. 1 to provide housing for nurses employed by its hospital. However, within a few years the structure fell into disrepair, and the appellant vacated the flats in 2002. A structural report by M/s Raje Consultants discovered that reconstruction …
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs M/S Unique Shanti Developers Read More »
Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 986 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Sanjiv Khanna CJI, B.R. Gavai J, P.V. Sanjay Kumar J, K.V. Vishwanathan J, A.G. Masih J Date of Judgement: April 30, 2025 As the number of cases in arbitration evolve, so does the arbitration landscape in India. Where efficiency, minimal court intervention and …
Case Comment: Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited Read More »
1. Introduction The Supreme Court of India rendered a historic ruling in the matter of Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, which had a substantial effect on the legal standing and regulatory framework of cryptocurrencies in the nation. The conflict began when the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a …
INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (2020) 10 SCC 274) Read More »
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 15 November, 2019 CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8766-67 OF 2019 DIARY NO.24417 OF 2019 BENCH: V. Ramasubramanian, Surya Kant, R.F. Nariman CITATION: AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1494 INTRODUCTION The Essar Steel case was a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India that significantly reshaped the understanding of judicial review and clarified …
CASE NAME: Comm. of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta. Read More »
1. FACTS OF THE CASE In the case of Delhi International Airport Limited (hereinafter referred to as “DIAL”) vs. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as “AERA”), the main issues are the price authority, regulatory jurisdiction, and legal interpretation of agreements between state regulators and private airport operators. A public-private partnership model …
Facts Of The Case The appellant was initially married in 2006 and had two children from the said marriage. The marriage ended in divorce in 2017, and the custody of the two children remained with her former husband. In 2018, the appellant entered into a second marriage. She joined the government service as an English …
K. Umadevi V. Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2025 Insc 781) Read More »
Title: Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, 2024 Petitioner: Shalini Dharmani Respondents: State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Court: Supreme Court of India Date of Judgment: March 11, 2024 Citation: (2024) SCC OnLine SC 363 Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ABSTRACT In Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh …
CASE COMMENT Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, 2024 Read More »
1: FACTS:- Mrs Deepika Singh was a nursing officer at PGIMER Chandigarh. During this time, she married Mr Amir Singh, who had two children from his previous marriage, a boy born on the date first of February 2001 and a girl who was born on the date third of March 2005. Mr Amir Singh ex-wife …
CASE COMMENT: DEEPIKA SINGH v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL(CAT)(2022) Read More »
In re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (suo motu writ petition) Supreme Court of India Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan Key Orders: August 20, 2024 (conviction restored) & May 23, 2025 (sentencing exercise) I. Introduction Sexual offences involving minors engage a matrix of personal dignity, societal norms, statutory standards, and the boundary between adolescence …
Court– supreme court of India (civil original Jurisdiction ) Bench – N.V. Ramana , R. Subhas Reddy and B.R. Gavai. JJ. Citation – AIR 2020 SC 1308, para 20 Date of Judgement – 10th January 2020 1. Facts of the Case The Indian government’s Ministry of Home Affairs issued an order for a total communication …
Name of case – Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India, 2020 Read More »
Citation: 2025 INSC 264 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh Date of Judgement: 25 February 2025 FACTS 1. RJD MLC Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh and Md. Sohaib disrupted the session of the Bihar Legislative Council on 13.02.2024 with obscene slogans against the Chief Minister, resulting in a …
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH vs BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (2025) Read More »
Petitioner: Vineeta Sharma Appellant: Rakesh Sharma Date of Case: 11 August, 2020 Bench: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M. R. Shah and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3717, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 676 Facts Issues Raised 1. Whether the daughter can claim her coparcenary rights (as applicable by the 2005 Amendment) even …
CASE COMMENT VINEETA SHARMA V. RAKESH SHARMA (2020) 9 SCC 1 Read More »
Facts Issues Raised ContentionsPetitioner’s Arguments1. Articles 14, 19 and 21 grant the fundamental right of marriage.The freedom of choice and marriage of the person one loves falls under personal freedom and dignity, the petitioners argued. Marriage is a social institution and not a personal matter, as the Supreme Court had already ruled in earlier cases of Shafin Jahan and Navtej Johar, the petitioners argued. Depriving same-sex couples of this privilege infringes on their constitutional rights of equality, autonomy and expression.2. A breach of Equality Be. fore the Law, Article 14The contention that laws like the Special Marriage Act, …