Harish Rana is not just a passive euthanasia decision. It is a constitutional statement that dignity does not end when consciousness fades. In Harish Rana v. Union of India, the Supreme Court confronted one of the most difficult questions in constitutional and medical jurisprudence: when a person has no realistic chance of recovery and is […]
Some cases do not test the law’s power…They test the law’s humanity. Read More »
In S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India (2026), the Supreme Court didn’t just issue a judgment—it delivered a constitutional ultimatum to the Government: Fix India’s roads, or answer for the violation of the Right to Life. The judgment marks a tectonic shift from viewing road safety as a policy suggestion to a fundamental right under Article 21. By categorising road
The Supreme Court held that reserve category candidates who score above the cut-off mark for open category candidates cannot be denied equality of treatment merely on account of their caste or community. The Rajasthan High Court had advertised 2756 vacancies for Junior Judicial Assistants, involving a written test followed by a typewriting test. Several reserved
Reserved Candidates in General Category Seats Read More »
The Supreme Court held that it may exercise its curative powers to prevent arbitrary disparity of outcomes in separate cases relying on identical evidence. It found that allowing a conviction based on evidence that was rejected as inadmissible in identical cases violates Articles 14 and 21. Surendra Koli was convicted for killing Rimpa Haldar. This was alleged to
Curative Power in Cases Involving Opposing Outcomes Based on Identical Evidence Read More »
The Supreme Court held that preventive detention is not the appropriate remedy for a detaining authority if an accused violates their bail conditions. The appellant, who was the wife of the detenu, had filed an appeal against a Kerala High Court judgement which had upheld the detention of her husband under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Preventive detention not an alternative for seeking cancellation of bail Read More »
The Supreme Court held that it is not bound to limit its scope while hearing an appeal. It may expand the merits of the case if required, under its power to do “complete justice” under Article 142. The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Biswajit Das, a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India,
The Supreme Court held that not presenting a person taken into custody by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for a crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, within 24 hours is illegal. Subash Sharma, the respondent in the case, was taken into custody by the ED at 11:00 am on 5 March. However, he was
Arrest under PMLA cannot Violate Fundamental Rights Read More »
The Supreme Court held that Courts can direct media organisations to take down online content about an ongoing case only when it poses a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the court proceedings. ANI Media had filed a suit against the Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court, seeking the removal of allegedly
Orders to Remove Online Content must be Necessary and Proportional Read More »
The case arises from concerns about the rising number of misleading advertisements, particularly those involving health and food products, which exploit consumers’ lack of knowledge. Despite existing frameworks like the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the Guidelines, 2022, the Court found these measures inadequate. Public complaints about deceptive endorsements by celebrities and corporations catalyzed the Indian
Misleading advertisements and Right to safe drugs Arts. 21 and 47- Constitution of India Read More »
In this case the fact that investigation had been completed and charge-sheet was ready to be filed in court, proper remedy of accused is to prefer discharge application before trial court, which would be considered in accordance with law. [Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 734] Case Comment: Honorable Supreme Court of
Terms & Conditions
The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:
The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising. I AGREE