Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Denying a woman employee her basic human right to maternity leave would be an assault on her dignity as an individual and thereby offend her fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
HIV/AIDS patients have a right of equal treatment everywhere and they cannot be denied job opportunity or discriminated against in employment matters.
P&H High Court clarified that the matter was not adjudicated on merits and the instant order was not a blanket bail in any FIR.
The Supreme Court said that it cannot adopt a doctrinaire approach. Some sacrifices have to be always made for the greater good, and unless such sacrifices are prima facie apparent and ex facie harsh and unequitable as to classify as manifestly arbitrary, these would not be interfered with by the court. Thus, no priority can be given to workers’ dues after liquidation of the company under the IBC.
A person who is residing in South India does not know the geography of Delhi and if recruited as civil defence volunteer, and in case of emergency he will get lost in Delhi instead of reaching to the place where emergency has occurred
“Person who does not do equity with others and even to the life companion, cannot approach the Court to seek approval of his relation under the umbrella of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Even if a single individual may be benefitted from the construction of revenue ‘rasta’ at the instance of the Revenue Collector, it is not sufficient and well-informed reason for the Panchayat to resist compliance with orders of the Collector.
“The prime concern and endeavour of law should be to secure justice on the basis of truth, which ought to be unearthed through a committed and competent investigating agency.” observes the Court.
The Gujarat HC has observed that right to freedom of trade may be a fundamental right, but not a carte blanche. The right to free trade in food items like meat, or any such food has to be sub-serving to public health and food safety requirements.
Madras High Court held that the right of privacy and reputation of the petitioner have been sullied by the act of the police officials for which the State is certainly responsible.
The Tribunal observed that the act of filling in 2 applications for one and the same post in more than one Unit cannot be accepted to be an inadvertent or innocent act.
Imposing a prohibitory ban on merchant establishments and establishments that provide livelihood is contrary to the enshrined principles under Article 21.
The rights of a child to education have to be balanced with the rights of the school under the DSER, 1973. If the petitioner is unable to pay the fees of the school, the petitioner certainly does not have a right to continue education in the school in question. However, the petitioner cannot be tormented in this manner in the middle of the academic session.
Unfounded criminal charges and long drawn criminal prosecution can have serious consequences. A person subjected to such litigation suffers immense mental trauma, humiliation and monetary loss.
Madras High Court said that, while dealing with the issue involved in this public interest litigation, the following words of the South African anti-apartheid activist, Nelson Mandela resonate in their mind – “No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones”.
The issue emerged after SP leader Azam called the unfortunate incident of 2016 gang-rape of a minor and her mother in Uttar Pradesh a “political conspiracy only and nothing else”. V Ramasubramanian, J delivered the verdict for himself and SA Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, JJ, however, BV Nagarathna, J, while agreeing with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the majority on certain questions referred, went on to lend a ‘different perspective’ on some issues.
The Delhi High Court held that grant of bail should not be considered only when the person was in the condition of dying and the authorities should not give long dates to the prisoners for their medical check-up and instead act with promptness, so that check-up could be conducted early.
A curious case presented itself before the Karnataka HC wherein they deliberated over an agreement for adoption entered between the biological parents and adoptive parents, when the child was still unborn.
“The nature of sexual violence and the contours of consent do not undergo a transformation when one decides to marry. The institution of marriage does not influence the answer to the question of whether a woman has consented to sexual relations. If the woman is in an abusive relationship, she may face great difficulty in accessing medical resources or consulting doctors.”
While the interim order was passed in the case on 21.07.2022, the Supreme Court took over two months to write a far-reaching 75-pages-long verdict, touching upon various aspects like purposive interpretation of Medical Termination of Pregnancy laws, equal status of married and unmarried or single women, right to reproductive autonomy, right to dignity, effect of unwanted pregnancy on mental health of women, etc.