Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The case arose from an incident at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) involving alleged vandalism of its Facial Recognition Technology system. Eight students were accused of supporting the protesters by cheering, clapping and sloganeering and were subsequently fined ₹19,000 each for indiscipline.
“The temple which has been constructed, admittedly, is without sanction and contrary to the disposal of the Nazul lands and hence is clearly an illegal structure. The same cannot be permitted to continue.”
The Court also accepted NTA’s statement that, for the present batch, the prescribed fee could be deposited through NEFT, with proof of payment annexed to the application.
The Court held that where such actual use is not proved even on a preponderance of probabilities, the harsher semester-wide penalty cannot be sustained.
The Court observed that “the very purpose of the LLM 3-year course is to enable students to continue practice before the Courts while simultaneously pursuing their Masters program”.
Delhi High Court held that an EWS student may be required to repeat Class V under Section 16 of the RTE Act where repeated academic support fails to ensure foundational learning, while directing the school to continue all EWS entitlements.
“In view of the interest of environmental protection and the area being ecologically sensitive, all types of commercial/religious activities for any purpose whatsoever shall be restricted from the said area.”
The Court clarified that at the present stage it was not conducting a final hearing, because if the petitioner was not provisionally permitted to appear in JEE Advanced 2026 to be conducted on 17 May 2026, the petition would become infructuous.
A university that accepts only obedience and discourages protests and criticism would fail in its broader educational role.
“The petitioners acted in accordance with the existing Bye Laws and the consistent past practice of CBSE and, therefore, had a legitimate expectation that after passing Class XII examination on 13.05.2025 the right to appear as private candidates for the Additional Subject examination, would be available.”
“If the ROPA itself mandates that non-joinder of a necessary party leads to dismissal of an election petition, the Court cannot use CPC provisions to cure that defect.”
“An election petition involves judicial interference with the electoral process and, consequently, with the mandate of the people. For this reason, the provisions of the Act must be construed strictly.”
The State has obligation to protect Student’s Right to Pursue Higher and Professional Education.
The respondent submitted that no arbitration clause existed in light of the IRDAI Circular dated 27-10-2023 and Gazette Notification dated 23-1-2024, which had de-notified and superseded arbitration clauses in fire insurance policies.
“Such an order merely terminates the arbitral proceedings on account of the claimant’s default in filing the statement of claim and does not involve any adjudication or determination of the rights or obligations of the parties.”
Vedanta is engaged in a product sharing contract with the government of India, for exploration, discovery, development and production of petroleum resources in relation to an onshore oil and gas block known as Rajasthan Block, since 1995.
The present incident took place on 4-1-1984, and since then the proceedings have been continuing for over four decades, with the trial itself taking nearly 19 years to conclude, and the present appeal remaining pending for more than 22 years.
The Court noted that under Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act it is not necessary to conclude a contract for the arbitration agreement contained within it to be valid. The arbitration agreement must form a part of documents/communication exchange between the parties.
“The provisions of CPC are only applicable to the extent of ‘enforcement’ of an award which are reflected in Order 21 of CPC. The legislature did not intend to permit a challenge an award during enforcement proceedings again on merits as it would be contrary to the objectives of the A&C Act which aims to ensure finality and limited judicial interference.”
The Court stated that the applicant should obtain necessary permissions from the municipal authorities concerned to see if more trees can be planted on the road leading to the Supreme Court as the same was enveloped with fully grown trees till some years ago.