Category: Constitution

Article 229 of the Constitution does not grant the Chief Justice the power to make rules regarding the post-retiral benefits of former judges – The State Government has the legislative power to make laws regarding the post-retiral benefits of its employees, including former High Court judges.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS —…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 370 – Abrogation of Special Status for Jammu and Kashmir upheld – State of Jammu and Kashmir does not have ‘internal sovereignty’ which is distinguishable from the powers and privileges enjoyed by other States in the country – Article 370 was a feature of asymmetric federalism and not sovereignty.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH IN RE: ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTION ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, B R Gavai, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 – Arbitration Proceedings – Applicability of Group of Companies Doctrine – Group of Companies doctrine is applicable to arbitration proceedings – Definition of “parties” under Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration Act includes both the signatory as well as non-signatory parties

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH COX AND KINGS LTD. — Appellant Vs. SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Hrishikesh…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Writ Petition – Direction to expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies HELD Learned Chief Justices of the High Courts shall register a suo-motu case with the title, “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – The suo-motu case may be heard by the Special Bench presided by the Learned Chief Justice or a bench assigned by them.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 15 (2), 17, 23 and 24 – Directions to Union of India and all the States and Union Territories to implement provisions of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 and Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 – Union and States are duty bound to ensure that the practice of manual scavenging is completely eradicated – Directions issued

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. BALRAM SINGH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

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.