Author: Gunjeet Singh

A contempt petition is filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India against the Central Board Of Secondary Education( CBSE) under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Contempt proceedings were filed against CBSE for willfully and deliberately disobeying the explicit direction given in a 2011 Supreme Court Judgement in “CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors.” (Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011) and a 2016 Supreme Court Order passed in “Kumar Shanu and Anr. Vs. YSK Seshu Kumar, Chairman, CBSE” Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 9837/2016 in Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011. The 2011 Judgement ruled that Answer-Script is an…

Read More

Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. and Vedantaa Institute of Medical Sciences had filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. They prayed before the court to direct Medical Council Of India to send its Experts’ team for the purpose of verifying the compliance of the deficiencies pointed out earlier and forward recommendations to the Union Government. The Court accepted their plea; aggrieved thereby, the Medical Council Of India appealed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and hence the present case. The present case “Medical Council of India v. Vedantaa Institute of Academic…

Read More

The Sessions Court had convicted Jabbar in 2013 for sodomizing( to perform unnatural or abnormal sexual intercourse on a person)  a 6- year-old boy thereby committing ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ on the child. Jabbar was found guilty under Section 6 of the POSCO Act, 2012 sentencing him to imprisonment for life along with Rs. 5000 fine. FACTUAL SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE: As per the testimony of the victim ‘S’ that was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by the Metropolitan Magistrate, S went to do latrine in the forest nearby his home, then Jabbar picked him up, removed the 6-year-Old’s clothes…

Read More

The father of a 19 year old girl Rifana Riyad filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala to produce the body of her daughter by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus because she is under the illegal custody of 18 year old Hanize. Both the boy and the girl, when produced before the Court, submitted that they have been intensely in love with each other since the school days. It was the second time that the girl had left her home to live with Hanize( the first time petitioner had managed to get to get her…

Read More

The Apex Court is yet to decide on several petitions on whether to make Aadhaar mandatory for government services and the overarching matter of citizens’ right to privacy. But the present ruling by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act at the Tis Hazari Courts in Delhi is certainly a sigh of relief for many. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Right To Information Act, 2005 being aggrieved by the Reply sent by the Public Information Officer at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The appellant had originally sought information as to whether…

Read More

A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice N Kirubakaran on 29th May 2018 directed the Union Government and the State Government to prohibit homework for Class 1 and Class II students in all schools even for the Central Board of Secondary Education. No other subjects than Language and Mathematics are to be taught in Class 1 and 2; no subjects other than Environmental Studies and Mathematics for Classes 3 to 5 as prescribed by the National Council Of Educational Research and Training( NCERT). The Court also directed the State Government to come up with a…

Read More

The appellant wife contended she was insulted by calling her “Kali Kaluti” and was being taunted for not preparing the food by her husband( respondent in the present case). In November 2012, the respondent and his family members had started demanding dowry as a result of which appellant had to return to her parents’ house. When attempts to reconcile were made the appellant’s father, the husband’s family threatened to get the appellant’s husband married second time. INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE: The present case “Radha Vs. Kamal Singh” was decided by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High…

Read More

INTRODUCTION: The present case “M/s . Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand” was adjudicated by a 3 judge bench of Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Navin Sinha on 18th May 2018. The issue for consideration was whether the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is functus officio( having no further official authority) after the award has become enforceable, and is thus, prevented from considering an application for setting aside an ex parte award. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 mandates the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court to follow such procedure as it thinks fit. An award becomes enforceable…

Read More

INTRODUCTION: The present case “Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra and Another” is an appeal against the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India that is adjudicated by Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit on 17th May 2018. Mr. Kishor Parashar, who was serving as the Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad, committed suicide on 08.08.2017 in his house. His wife made a complaint to police that her husband was suffering from mental torture as his higher officers were getting heavy work done from her husband; he would…

Read More

PETITION TO IMPLEAD PRO TEM SPEAKER AND CONDUCT FREE AND FAIR FLOOR TEST: The Congress and the JD (S) filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India on 18.05.2018 against the decision of appointing a junior MLA Shri K.G. Bopaiah of the Bharatiya Janta Party or the BJP as the pro tem Speaker( or Speaker for the time being). The Application also seeks urgent directions to ensure that the Floor Test is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. In the petition, the credibility of the pro tem Speaker…

Read More

“If sharing bed is the only way to come up in life then does it include all women who are holding high posts now?” This was the remark of Justice S. Ramathilagam of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature Madras while hearing a petition associated with Section 504, 505, 509 of the Indian Penal Code and  freedom of speech and expression( enshrined in Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India). Section 504 of Indian Penal Code punishes whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person,intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him…

Read More

INTRODUCTION: A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel adjudicated the case “Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited and Ors.” Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15804 of 2017. The petition was decided on 16th May 2018 in continuation of Order dated 7th May, 2018 and the issue before the court was Restructuring of Tribunal System in the light of constitutional scheme as interpreted in decisions of this Court and the Expert Studies. Tribunals were added in the Constitution by Constitution Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976 as Part XIV-A, having…

Read More

INTRODUCTION: The present case “United Bank of India and others v. United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association and others etc” Civil Appeal Nos. 5252-5255 Of 2018 is directed against a 2016 decision of Calcutta High Court wherein it had held that there was no justification for making a distinction between pre November, 2002 retirees and post November, 2002 retirees and the appellant must pay dearness relief to all pensioners at the same rate. The present case was adjudicated by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh…

Read More

INITIATION INTO THE CASE- Whether an anticipatory bail should be for a limited period of time was the issue before the issue before a 3 judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 15th May 2018 comprising of Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Navin Sinha. Anticipatory Bail as provided by Sec 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure is aptly enumerated by the Hon’ble Court in the present case as following: A) The object of Section 438 CrPC has been repeatedly explained by this Court and the High Courts to mean that a person should…

Read More

INTRODUCTION: A division bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha, in a surprising move, on 14th May 2018 acquitted those who were convicted by the Appellate Tribunal in relation to what is referred to as the “Satyam Scam”. The infamous multi-crore Satyam Scam, was one amongst the biggest in the past decade amounting to a whopping Rs. 7136 crore, that called for better government regulations among the corporate world had, in essence, proved to be a shock for the Indian market and especially for the firm’s share holders. LEAD UP TO…

Read More