Digital KYC acid attack victimsvisually impaired
Case BriefsSupreme Court

“Bridging the digital divide is no longer merely a matter of policy discretion but has become a constitutional imperative to secure a life of dignity, autonomy and equal participation in public life”.

Scribe for disabled candidates
Case BriefsSupreme Court

“All the benefits given to PwBD candidates must also be extended to PwD candidates, and there can be no discrimination between the candidates in granting facilities such as scribes, compensatory time, etc., except for reservation, in writing the examinations.”

Manipur High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

A PIL was instituted before the Manipur High Court seeking direction to make public buildings accessible to disabled and elderly people by providing Ramps & Toilets.

MBBS admission to disabled
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Dean of Pune’s Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College was directed to constitute a Medical Board to examine as to whether the speech and language disability of the petitioner would come in his way of pursuing the MBBS.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

As per reports, the case relates to alleged wasteful expenditure of almost Rs 53 crore on the renovation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s official residence.1

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court held that places of worship could not encroach on public land and therefore, permitted demolition of parts of Mandir and Masjid to make pedestrian pathway uniform.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Sabina and Satyen Vaidya JJ. dismissed the petition on grounds of non-interference.  The facts

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: The  Division Bench of Satish Kumar Sharma and Indrajit Mahanty, JJ., dismissed the petition remitting the matter to State

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sanjay Karol, ACJ and Sandeep Sharma, J. directed the authorities to take necessary

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The petitioner, who challenged the eligibility of Respondent 5 to participate in the Tender process, was left high