[Lakshadweep Regulations] Ker HC | Draft stipulations are premature, cannot be assailed through PIL
Kerala High Court: T.R. Ravi, J., held that draft stipulation could not be accepted for the challenge as the same is premature
pil
Kar HC | Freedom struggle cannot be compared to the lockdown imposed due to COVID – 19 pandemic; Misuse of PIL a serious concern
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma and M. Nagaprasanna, JJ., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The
Farooq Abdullah’s Article 370 comment| ‘Dissent from Govt’s decision cannot be said to be seditious’; SC junks “publicity interest litigation”; imposes heavy costs
“This is clearly a case of publicity interest litigation for the petitioners only to get their names in press.”
Jhar HC | [Public Interest Litigation] Being a prime institution of the State, NUSRL definitely needs regular support from the State Government; necessary directions issued
Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of Dr Ravi Ranjan, CJ and Sujit Narayan Prasad, J., while issuing directions for encircling the
All HC | Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah directed to conduct inquiry over manhandling of an Advocate by police
Allahabad High Court: The Division bench of Govind Mathur, CJ and Saumitra Dayal Singh, J., directs the Chief Judicial Magistrate to submit a
HP HC | [Public Interest Litigation] Process of Court cannot be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sandeep Sharma, JJ., while dismissing the present petition said, “The
All HC | A dispute between two warring groups is in the realm of a private dispute and is not allowed to be agitated as a Public Interest Litigation
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and Saurabh Lavania, JJ., dismissed a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner in Public
All HC | Whether Public Interest Litigation in service matters is maintainable? HC explains in light of SC decisions
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Shashi Kant Gupta and Shamim Ahmed, JJ., addressed whether public Interest litigation in service matters are
Del HC | PIL seeking paid leave to women employees during menstruation: Centre & State Govt. to consider PIL as representation
As reported by PTI, the Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and Prateek Jalan addressed an issue wherein Delhi Labour Union sought
Hathras Gang Rape| CRPF to provide security to the victim’s family & witnesses; SC says apprehensions are not without justification
In a matter of the present nature it is necessary to address the normal perception and pessimism which cannot be said as being without justification.
Del HC | Merely because triple talaq has been declared to be void and illegal, it does not mean that legislature could not have made continuation of such practice an offence
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Rajnish Bhatnagar, JJ., in regard to Triple Talaq observed that, Prima facie it
Hathras Gang-Rape | “Shocked by reports of events that led to victim’s cremation”, All HC orders registration of Suo Motu PIL
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Rajan Roy and Jaspreet Singh, JJ., while taking suo motu cognizance of an extremely sensitive and
All HC | “Petition entered public domain through a leading legal news website even before it was filed in the Court; Cheap publicity sought
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and Rajeev Singh, JJ., found itself dealing with an unusual set of facts
Class Actions in India: Will the Floodgates Open?
by Shaneen Parikh* & Namita Shetty**
Bom HC | “Black sheep are found in all walks of life and in all spheres”: HC issues directions to executive in light of upholding the rights of citizens
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., while addressing the instant PIL, observed that,
Sushant Singh Rajput death | Bom HC defers hearing till 21st August, 2020 on plea seeking CBI investigation
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ, and A.S. Gadkari, JJ., deferred the hearing for PIL’s filed in view of
Del HC | Advocates are capable enough to approach Court, if aggrieved: Plea for non-inclusion of advocates as “Professionals” under MSME Act dismissed
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and Prateek Jalan, J., held that as and when any advocate approaches the
Guj HC | Virtual Streaming of Court proceedings to be decided after Judge’s report to work out modalities in view of facilitating public at large
Gujarat High Court: A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and P.B. Pardiwala, J., while addressing an issue with regard to the live
TN Custodial Deaths | Madras HC | Suo motu cognizance of “Jayaraj & Bennicks” matter already taken on Judicial side; PIL seeking registration of FIR against police excesses — closed
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of M. Sathyanarayanan and P. Rajamanickam, JJ., while stating that it has already on the Judicial side