
Know why Karnataka High Court rejected X Corp’s challenge to Sahyog Portal
“A Company which is faceless in India, cannot on the basis of baseless allegations, come forward and challenge the laws of the nation.”
“A Company which is faceless in India, cannot on the basis of baseless allegations, come forward and challenge the laws of the nation.”
“Any attempt to stigmatize or marginalize an entire class of persons offends the guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 and freedom of expression with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).”
There is no valid justification for creating two classes of pensioners, i.e. those who retired between 1-1-2006 and 31-3-2009, and those who retired after 31-3-2009, solely to grant a revised pension.
“The doctrine of reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution permits the State to impose limitations on such trade in the interest of public peace and security.”
The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the vires of the Notification dated 13-8-2025, issued by the Home (General) Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (’GNCTD’), with the approval of the Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor.
“Providing a specific reservation in form of 3% seats is totally unacceptable as it is not provided by the law, as contemplated under Article 15(5) and introducing the reservation for this category which creates sub-classification, which has no nexus with the object of offering medical education but on merit is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
“A comprehensive reading of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India clearly indicates that no laws can be created or enforced so as to cause discrimination against women.”
“The exam was only three hours, in which even for ten minutes, if a student faces a difficulty in reading and writing due to a power outage, the same has the effect of rattling one’s mental condition, and is sufficient to disturb his or her composure and focus for the remaining time.”
“A majority of NLUs established across various States in India have adopted domicile-based reservation policies …emphasising the promotion of legal education both at the national and regional levels.”
“The process adopted by the State must fall within the four corners of the ethos of the Constitution and equality clause, the writ petitions cannot be dismissed on technical grounds.”
The Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in a case where a similar amendment of by State of Rajasthan was held ultra vires Article 14 and Article 246 of the Constitution due to the doctrine of public policy being vague and uncertain.
“Such an undisciplined approach is symptomatic of the culture of apathy that has developed on the subject of the rights and well-being of convicts. In denying them their legal right to be considered under a policy duly devised by the State for a specific purpose, the authorities have essentially categorised them as second-class citizens.”
“Government servants, elected legislators, Judges in the Supreme Court and High Court, and prominent journalists do not belong to the “weaker” or per se deserving sections of our society, warranting special State reservations to land allotment.”
“If a married son is eligible for compassionate appointment if he was dependent upon his father at the time of his death unless he had his own means of livelihood, then, there is no reason as to why a married daughter who is similarly placed, i.e., if she was dependent upon her father, should not be eligible for compassionate appointment under the aforesaid scheme.”
The Court added that this directive does not affect ongoing recruitment where examinations have already been conducted.
The Court acknowledged the grievance raised about the lack of recruitment for gazetted posts in Ladakh, issued notice and sought for the UPSC and Ladakh Government’s response.
“The petitioner can neither be cursed for her father’s culpability nor can the State tether her with her father’s acts or crimes to continue all through her life, though she had no role to play.”
Looking at the punishments awarded to the co-delinquents for same incidents/transactions and acts of connivance and testing the impugned action on the anvil of Article 14 as well as keeping in mind the long and unblemished spell of service of the respondent, save and except, the Single Judge was inclined to convert the punishment from ‘dismissal’ to one of ‘compulsory retirement’.
“The conditions in the Union Territory of J&K are entirely different … this part of the Country has been reeling under militancy for the last more than three decades, as such, the State is justified in dealing with the crimes relating to terrorism in a manner that is different from dealing with similar crimes in Delhi.”
The case relates to IT Rules Amendment, 2023, when it allowed the government to set up Fact-Check Units (FCUs) to tackle misinformation against it, sparking fears of censorship and a chilling effect on free speech.