Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [2020 SCC OnLine SC 383] The Supreme Court deals with the constitutional validity of 100% reservation in government positions for backward class, i.e., STs. Bench – Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, Indira Banerjee, M.R. Shah and Anirudhha Bose. Facts – During the execution …
Prithviraj Chouhan v. UOI [2020 SCC OnLine SC 159] The Supreme Court deals with the constitutional validity of Section 18A of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018. Bench – Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, S. Ravindra Bhat. Facts – The petitioners questioned the constitutionality of Section 18-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled …
Prithviraj Chouhan v. UOI [2020 SCC OnLine SC 159] Read More »
Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. [2020 7 SCC 469] The Supreme Court declared that women’s permanent commission shall be granted in the navy and army as per the constitutional provisions in India and Article 14 and 39. Bench – D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi. Facts – Babita Puniya filed a writ …
Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. [2020 7 SCC 469] Read More »
Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. State of Uttarakhand [2020 SCC Online SC 148] The court determined that Articles 16 (4) and 16 (4A) are merely enabling provisions and that the right to promotion is subject to the judgement of the State Government. The State Government is not required to create reservations, and the courts have …
Mukesh Kumar & Anr. V. State of Uttarakhand [2020 SCC Online SC 148] Read More »
Anuradha Bhasin v. UOI [2020 SCC OnLine SC 25] Internet services are protected under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution. However, they are also subjected to the provisions of Article 19 (6). Bench – N.V. Ramana, Subhash Reddy and B.R Gavai. Facts – This case encases the condition of Jammu and Kashmir’s internet …
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala [2019 11 SCC 1] The Supreme Court ruled that discrimination or segregation which refers to the biological characteristics is considered to be constitutionally invalid because it violated women’s dignity, freedom, and autonomy as under Article 21. Bench – Dipak Misra, R.F. Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar and Indu …
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala [2019 11 SCC 1] Read More »
Common Cause v. UOI [AIR 2018 SC 1665] The Supreme Court ruled that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right and that persisting treatment against a patient’s desires violates not only the concept of explicit consent, but also corporeal privacy and bodily integrity, both of which have been identified as aspects of …
Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI [AIR 2018 SC 4321] It overturned Suresh Kumar Koushal judgement and unanimously repealed Section 377, making same-sex relationships amongst consenting individuals of majority age legal. Bench – Dipak Misra, DY Chandrachud, Rohington Nariman, AM Khanvilkar, and Indu Malhotra. Facts – Consensual sexual activity between people of the same sex was …
Shayara Bano v. UOI [AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC)] The practise of Triple Talaq was held as unconstitutional. Bench – Rohinton Nariman, U.U. Lalit, Kurian Joseph, J.S. Khehar and Abdul Nazeer. Facts – Shayara Bano was in a marital relationship with Rizwan Ahmed as his wife for 15 years. He divorced her in 2016 …
Justice KS Puttaswamy v. UOI [2017 10 SCC 1] Right to Privacy was declared to be an inalienable and separate fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Bench – Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Chelameswar, S. A. Nazeer, D.Y. Chandrachud, J. S. Khehar, S. A. Bobde, R. K. Agrawal, R. K. Agrawal and A.M. Sapre. …
