Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen.”
“It is not the case of petitioners that in case if marriage is not performed, then they are still interested to live in live-in relationship. It is also not the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1 would accept Muslim religion.”
Madras High Court noted that there are three pending cases against the petitioner in the State of Tamil Nadu, out of which, two cases were registered in the year 2023
Madhya Pradesh High Court highlighted the need for judicious assessment of threat perception and responsible utilization of police resources.
Allahabad High Court clarified that it is not against live-in relationships, but against illegal relations
Punjab and Haryana High Court tagged the instant petition to be an abuse of the legal process for covering up the petitioners’ illicit relationship on being caught.
The purpose of a temple is to enable the devotees to worship God for peace and happiness. However, unfortunately, temple festivals are perpetuating violence, and it is only becoming a center stage for groups to show who is powerful in the particular area.
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.
“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.”
Madras High Court granted police protection for conducting Cock fight to mark the birthday celebrations of the late Chief Minister Dr.M.G.Ramachandran, subject to certain conditions.
Similar cases are an exception to the precedent laid down in Imran v. State of Delhi, (2011) 10 SCC 192
Delhi High Court: In a case where two adults married against the wishes of the family and now anticipate danger to their
Rajasthan High Court: Sameer Jain J. granted police protection and directed the State authorities to charge an appropriate fee from the couple
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A writ petition was filed seeking the relief of protection of life and liberty at the hands
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vivek Rusia, J. decided on a petition which was filed seeking police protection. The facts of the case
Rajasthan High Court: Dinesh Mehta J. rejected the petition and disposed off the stay application. The instant petitions were filed by couples
Rajasthan High Court: Satish Kumar Sharma J. dismissed the petition and rejected police protection to a couple. The instant petition was filed
Madras High Court: M. Nirmal Kumar, J., directed police protection to a member of the LGBTQIA+ Community who had apprehension of being
Madras High Court: N. Anand Venkatesh, J., while addressing the present petition expressed that: “This is the third occasion, in the last
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Sindhu Sharma, J., while allowing the present petition, issued directions to the police authorities, to ensure that