Since anticipatory bail as well as transit anticipatory bail are intrinsically linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution, it would be necessary to give a constitutional imprimatur to the evolving provision of transit anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court warned against forum shopping and clarified that accused cannot travel to any other State, solely for filing bail pleas without clear reasons.
In a verbose verdict running into 366 pages, the 5-judge Constitution Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJI and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, PS Narasimha, JJ wrote 4 opinions on the Same Sex Marriage matter where they agreed on some points and disagreed on others.
A punishment of censure which is not likely to have any effect on the career of the police officers will not be a sufficient deterrent to the officer. The censure should be of such nature that other officers too must not emulate such actions in future.
The applicant behind bars will be violative of Article 21 as the status of the applicant is merely that of a suspect till the outcome of the proceedings emanating therefrom as the applicant is innocent till proven guilty.
The Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 provides with paternity leave. But such a welfare measure is not provided by the various states in India, including the state of Tamil Nadu. This case marks the need for paternity leave legislation in India.
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.
Due to non-payment of salary and non-consideration of petitioner’s representation for four years, all of his family members had suffered mentally and financially.
Awareness has to be created in young minds not just from the point of view of emotional and societal pressures that Live -in relationships may create, but also from the perspective that it could give rise to various legal hassles.
“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 petitioner was engaged to undertake the cleaning and sweeping of the Government office premises for almost 26 years and was being paid much less than even the minimum wages paid to manual labourers. The Bombay High Court said that it t is a fit case where the State should compensate the Petitioner for violating her rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India.
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.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that even if the lease has expired the electricity cannot be cut off to the petitioner while he is in possession of the suit property.
Supreme Court observed that the Patna High Court ought to have called upon the Bihar State Pharmacy Council to file the status report on the allegations of fake pharmacist and/or on how many Governments’ hospitals/hospitals in the State are running without registered pharmacist.
“The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition”
Of all the things a system should fear, Complacency heads the list. The case in hand gave us a wake-up call and made us question ourselves as to whether we have become complacent and conditioned while dealing with preventive detention cases. Having got that call from within, we decided to shake up and wriggle out of the complacency and do a reality check.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by petitioner-wife praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 18-03-2019
“The human life has its charm and there is no reason why the life should not be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures. Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him. No one can claim a right to create noise even in his own premises which would travel beyond his precincts and cause nuisance to neighbours or others. Any noise which has the effect of materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of life judged by the standard of a reasonable man is nuisance.”
Supreme Court: The bench of Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala, JJ has, in a relief to politician and lawyer Nupur Sharma, has