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, …
Citation: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 162 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh Date of Judgment: 7 February, 2025 1. FACTS On June 10, 2024, Vihaan Kumar, a businessman from Gurugram, was arrested by the local police on allegations of financial …
Case Comment : Vihaan Kumar V. State of Haryana (2025) Read More »
Citation: Jayamma & Anr V. The State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0347/2021 Facts The case revolves around Mrs. Jayamma, wife of Sanna Ramanaika ,deceased, who was burned alive by the appellant Mrs. Jayamma, wife of Reddinaika, Appellant 1 after fighting over a family matter involving alleged assault of Reddinaika, by Thippeswamynaika ,son of the deceased. This incident …
Case Comment: Jayamma V. State of Karnataka 2021 Read More »
1. FACTS The case of *Gene Campaign v. Union of India*, (2024) SC, marked a significant milestone in the Indian environmental and agricultural jurisprudence. Gene Campaign, a prominent non-governmental organization advocating for farmers’ rights and bio-diversity conservation, challenged the Union Government’s decision to allow the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) mustard, DMH-11, developed by …
CASE COMMENT Gene Campaign v. Union of India, (2024) Read More »
Case Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 2608 Of 2024Court: Supreme Court of IndiaBench: A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.Date of Judgment: May 16, 2024 1. FACTS On June 16, 2023, Tarsem Lal was implicated in a case involving the alleged illegal allotment of Shamlat Lands to ineligible private parties in Punjab. However, de facto, these lands …
CASE COMMENT: TARSEM LAL V. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, JALANDHAR ZONAL OFFICE (2024) 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 »
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 »
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 »
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 …
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 Guiding vs. Binding Norms 4.2 Women’s Workforce Participation as a Constitutional Right …
Case Comment – Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 653) 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 …
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 »
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 …
(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 »
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 …
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 2636 OF 2013 TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK & ORS. …. APPELLANT (S) VERSUS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS. …. RESPONDANT (S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2635 OF 2013 CIVIL APPEAL …
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 »
ABOUT THE CASE: Case Title – Prabha Tyagi v Kamlesh Devi Citation – Prabha Tyagi v Kamlesh Devi (2022) 11 SCC 352 Jurisdiction- Appellate Criminal Jurisdiction Date of Judgment- May 12, 2022 Bench- M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ Petitioner- Prabha Tyagi Respondent- Kamlesh Devi FACTS The aggrieved woman (Prabha Tyagi) married Kuldeep Tyagi …
Case Title: Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal Case type: Civil Appeal Case Number: No. 5308 of 2022 Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud & Justice A.S. Bopanna Jurisdiction: Appellate Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India 1. FACTS 2. ISSUES RAISED 3. CONTENTIONS Petitioner’s Contentions (Deepika …
CASE BRIEF: Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Others (2022) Read More »
ABOUT THE CASE: CASE TITLE: Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India (2025) CITATION- 2025 SCC OnLine SC 698 NATURE OF THE CASE- A writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court to protect freedom of speech on digital platforms. FINAL VERDICT: Interim order partly modified on 3rd March 2025, podcast allowed conditionally; foreign travel …
CASE COMMENT: Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India (2025) Read More »
Particulars Details Parties Anuradha Bhasin (Petitioner) vs. Union of India (Respondent) Type of Case Writ Petition (Civil) under Article 32 of the Constitution Case Number Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031 of 2019 Date of Judgment 10th January 2020 Bench (Judges) Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice B.R. Gavai Advocates (Prominent) For Petitioner: Sr. …
Appellant: Prabir Purkayastha Respondent: State (NCT of Delhi) Nature of The Case: Criminal Case Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Date of Judgement: 15th May, 2024 Bench: J. B. R. Gavai and J. Sandeep Mehta Legal Provisions: UAPA- Sec. 13, 16, 17, 18, 22(C); IPC – Sec. 153(A) [196, BNS], 120(B) [61(2), BNS]; PMLA – Sec. 3, …
Case Commentary Prabir Purkayastha v. State of NCT of Delhi Read More »
Facts On 5 August 2019, the Government of India abrogated Article 370 of the constitution by removing special status of Jammu and Kashmir region.[1] To preserve law and order, extreme limitations were put on movement, assembly, and communication withun the locale by the government as a implies of preventive measures; an online shutdown was portion …
Case Comment: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) Read More »
Original Application No. 141/2014 BENCH– Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, chairperson Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P Wangdi, judicial member Hon’ble Dr. Nagin Nanda, expert member Before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench, New Delhi Date of hearing: 04.12.2019 Date of order: 12.12.2019 Parties– Appellant: Saloni Singh & Anr. Respondent: Union of India & Ors. …
CASE COMMENTARY Saloni Singh vs Union of India on 12 December, 2019 Read More »
Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Justices JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan Legal provision: the constitution of India Parties: Petitioner: State of Tamil Nadu through Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Lawyers: Sabarish Subramaniam, AOR; Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv; Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv; P. Wilson, Sr. Adv Respondents: Governor of Tamil Nadu through the Secretary …
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU V GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU (2025) 4 SCC 123 Read More »
Date of Judgment: 10 January 2020 Petition Type: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1031 of 2019 CASE FACTS: The Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has had a long-standing history of special status, as mentioned in Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted autonomy, separate Constitution, restrictions for ownership of land by outsiders, etc. The …
Case Comment: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 Read More »
Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE B.R GAWAI AND JUSTICE AG MASIH DATE OF JUDGEMENT : MAY 22 , 2025 CITATION – SLP (CRL) NO. 5480/2025 Introduction – The supreme court of India’s decision in Lakshaya Tawar versus Central bureau of investigation stands as a potent reminder of the fundamental rights to personal liberty and strand in article …
CASE COMMENT LAKSHAYA TAWAR V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION . Read More »
1. Fact of the case Jindal Steel & Power Ltd (JSPL) is a leading conglomerate in India engaged in large steel and power generation units. The company is operating captive power generation plant due to insufficient and inconsistent power supply by State Electricity Board (SEB) to ensure uninterrupted power supply to its manufacturing units, as …
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., 2023, SC Read More »