Constitution of India

It is necessary for reviewing Court to demonstrate the error(s) apparent on the face of the record which warranted the review, with reasons. In the present case, except stating that “it is noticed that there is apparent error on the face of record which calls for interference”, nothing has been mentioned on what was that […]

If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. Relief under Article 226/227

Order of High Court directing State Government to increase the percentage of reservation for a particular category, that is, to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sportspersons, instead of 1% provided by State Government, held, beyond its jurisdiction and a grave error. (Para 10 and 11) Court cannot issue a mandamus: (i) to provide for reservation

Accountability of Social media platforms, for posts made on such platforms by third parties: held, social media platforms such as petitioner Facebook cannot contend that they have some exceptional privilege to abstain from appearing before a House Committee duly constituted by the Legislature concerned. Extent of accountability of Social media platforms for posts made by third

The respondent was a clerk cum cashier. It is a post of confidence. The respondent breached the trust of a widowed sister in law as well as of the Bank, making it hardly a case for interference either on law or on moral grounds. The punishment imposed on the respondent could also hardly be said

Law summarized regarding when proportionality test to be applied for determining reasonableness of restrictions or limitations on the rights concerned, specifically in the context of Art. 19(6) and more generally under Arts. 14 and 21. “Therefore, we find that the judgment dated 8.10.2020 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was correct in holding that clause

Held, The discretion of court in directing DNA test must be exercised after balancing the interests of the parties and whether a DNA test is needed for a just decision in the matter and such direction satisfies the test of “eminent need”. Court should examine the proportionality of the legitimate aims being pursued i.e. whether

Held, deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Art 21 of the Constitution. Once it si obvious that timely trial would not be possible and accused has suffered incarceration for significant period of time, courts wouls ordinarilily be obligated to enlarge him on bail.(Paras 10-12)  [Ashim v. National Investigation Agency, (2022)

When a person is preventively detained Arts. 21 & 22 are attracted and not Art. 19. Hence, to tear observations made in Madhu Limaye case out of context would be fraught with danger when it comes to liberty of person under Art. 21. Hence, contention that liberal meaning must be given to the expression “public

Citizens have right to information relating to court proceedings, except in-camera proceedings. This includes the right to know the observations / remarks made by Judges during course of hearing, not forming part of judgment or binding decision, which the media is free to report. Chief Election Commissioner of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar and others, (2021)