Category: Constitution

Right to Education Act, 2009 – Section 23(1) – Appointment to Post of Primary School Teachers – Decision of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to include B.Ed. as a qualification for teachers in a primary school seems arbitrary, unreasonable and in fact has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act i.e. Right to Education Act, which is to give to children not only free and compulsory but also ‘quality’ education

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVESH SHARMA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Judicial review becomes necessary where there is an illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. A policy decision which is totally arbitrary; contrary to the law, or a decision which has been taken without proper application of mind, or in total disregard of relevant factors is liable to be interfered with, as that also is the mandate of law and the Constitution.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVESH SHARMA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is, rather destructive of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; it therefore, falls afoul of the equality clause, in Article 14 of the Constitution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEV GUPTA — Appellant Vs. PEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

An Authorized Officer under the PMLA, 2002 is not duty bound to follow the rigor of Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 as against the binding conditions under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 – – When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA, 2002 no writ of Habeus Corpus would lie — Section 167 of the CrPC, 1973 is a bridge between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. SENTHIL BALAJI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and M. M.…

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provide for the remedy of appeal to Supreme Court only with respect to the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in its original jurisdiction or as the court of first instance (original orders) and no further appeal lies against the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. SURESH CHAND JAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj…

What are the contours of the power of Parliament to enact a law under Article 239-AA(7) and Whether Parliament in the exercise of its power under Article 239-AA(7) can abrogate the constitutional principles of governance for National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) – Substantial question of law – Reference to a Constitution Bench.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,…

Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time – Relief to a person, who puts forward a stale claim can certainly be refused relief on account of delay and laches – Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN DAS (DEAD) THR. LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.