“The respondents being “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers are public functionaries. Under our Constitution, sovereignty vests in the people. Every limb of constitutional machinery, therefore, is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behavior”
“ It is ironic that the petitioner being appointed with the Juvenile Justice Board, is hired to protect the interest and welfare of the children who may be suffering at the hands of criminal justice system, however, is not able to secure the benefits that are necessary for the best interest and welfare of her own child.”
Coming down furiously over the respondents Karnataka High Court reprimanded them for indulging in red-tapism and being apathetic to the educational needs of the children.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deliberating over the instant writ petition concerning reservation provided to Pahari Speaking People, the
Madras High Court: A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of
Tripura High Court: In a public interest litigation seeking issuance of show cause to the respondents as to why a writ of
Delhi High Court: In a PIL filed by Pankaj Kumar, a young advocate of 29 years of age, enrolled with Delhi Bar
Kerala High Court: In a significant case where a widow whose husband died due to adverse effects of Covid-29 immunization had approached
Digitization is the road ahead. It should lead to empowerment and not deprivation. The “ifs” haunt me. What can the court do in such circumstances when the student is not at fault?
Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench): Suraj Govindaraj, J. while deciding a matter regarding handcuffing of an accused during arrest, held that “handcuffing
Delhi High Court: Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. denied relief to Swastika Ghosh and Manush Shah (‘Petitioner(s)'), table tennis players who
“The allegations of bureaucrats deviating from strict norms of political neutrality with a view to obtaining party tickets to contest elections, is vague, devoid of particulars and unsupported by any materials which could justify intervention of this Court.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J.dismissed a petition which was filed in
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Nandita Dubey, J. heard a petition which was filed seeking issuance of the writ of mandamus to the
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya, JJ. dismissed the petition being devoid merits. The
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of writ jurisdiction, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the State
Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is the sole prerogative of the Government.
Madras High Court: V. Parthiban, J., expressed that plea of public interest in a private loan transaction is only a mask to
Kerala High Court: T.R. Ravi, J., held that draft stipulation could not be accepted for the challenge as the same is premature
“Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different.”