Constitution of India

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)

In this case, dispute between appellant and R-4 concerning alleged right to way of R-4 decided by Revenue Authorities against appellant., that order was challenged before High Court as appeal was dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, High Court passed cryptic order without considering essential issues. Without going into questions whether there was any easement

Ex gratia monetary compensation to families of deceased who have succumbed to pandemic of COVID-19: Word “shall” used in S. 12, held, cannot be interpreted and considered as “may”. It is mandatory for National Authority to recommend guidelines for minimum standards of relief to be provided to persons affected by disasters including ex gratia assistance

One is entitled to correction and / or modification of name recorded in the examination certificate  and other changes to information contained therein. CBSE examination bye lawsrestricting scope of permissible corrections/ changes in certificates issued by it is unreasonable. Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, (2021) 7 SCC 535

Maximum upper limit of 50% reservation as laid down in Indra Sawhney, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, binding under Art. 141 and has to be implemented. As there were no grounds to refer Indra Sawhney case to a larger Bench, prayer for the same, rejected. S. 2(j) of the MSEBC Act, 2018 insofar as it declares

All-State Election Commissioners appointed under Art. 243-K/Art. 243-ZA, held, have to be independent persons who cannot be persons who are occupying a post or office under the Central or any State Government. If there are any such persons holding such post of State Election Commissioner in any State, such persons must be asked forthwith to

Limited scope of judicial review in matters concerning economy and/or economic policy decisions, emphasized. Judges are not experts in economic and fiscal regulatory matters and thus, should not encroach upon these areas and must be more reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the court is

The High Court allowed the writ petition by observing that what has been granted by the competent authority under the certificate of deemed conveyance is much more than what is is sought in the prayers of the application. The High Court has not recorded the specific reason as to why that finding has been reached.