Constitution of India

Held, we find that the writ petition challenging the clauses was maintainable. It is not disputed that GAIL is a Public Sector Undertaking and thus qualifies under the definition of ‘State’ as per Article 12 of the Constitution. At the time of entering into contract, GAIL was enjoying a monopolistic position with respect to the supply of natural […]

The petition dealt with the misuse of the right of freedom of speech and expression, as provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, by public functionaries who made distasteful remarks against certain individuals who were the victims of a crime. The grounds lined up in Art. 19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are

Supreme Court judgment directing all trial courts and Magistrates to act independently of interim/interlocutory orders, even of High Court, in circumstances specified in the said Supreme Court judgment. In such a case, held, all Magistrates and trial courts in India must act in terms of the Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, without any further

Ratio of Neeharika, (2021) 19 SCC 401, clarified and reiterated, that grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under S. 482 CrPC/Art. 226 of the Constitution is permissible only in the rarest of rare cases. Para 10. Despite the earlier judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court, again,

There is primacy of orders of High Court over those of statutory tribunals in case of conflicting orders. Law declared by the High Court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it. Further, tribunals are subordinate to High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of High

Scope of rights of “victim” of crime, to participate in criminal proceedings, at various stages, including at stage of bail proceedings, particularly after insertion of S. 2(wa) vide CrPC Amendment Act of 2008, explained. Held, in the present case, the ‘victims’ have been denied a fair and effective   hearing   at   the   time   of   granting   bail  

Independent income, younger age and/or bigger family of maternal aunt cannot be sole criteria to tilt balance and deny custody to grandparents when capacity and/or ability of grandparents to take care of their grandson, cannot be doubted. Gransfather stayed in metro city where minor had better educational prospects, as opposed to maternal aunt who stayed

State on ground of delay and laches cannot evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property has been expropriated. While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it is pertinent to note that at the time of dispossession of the subject land, this right was still included in part III

In order to protect women victims of domestic violence occurring in a domestic relationship, the expression “joint family” in the DV Act, held, cannot be restricted to its meaning as understood in Hindu law and, thus, expression “family members living together as a joint family, means the members living jointly as a family of any

Fire accident resulting in death and injuries, thus joint and several liability of A) private organisers of the event for failure to take adequate safety precautions and vicarious liability of B) State/ state officials for negligence in performance of statutory duties. Where life and personal liberty have been violated, absence of any applicable statutory provision(s)