The petition, filed as a public interest litigation by Advocate Gaurav Jain, sought the court's intervention to address the rights and rehabilitation of prostitutes in India. The petitioner sought a declaration affirming several fundamental rights for prostitutes, including freedom, protection from re-entrapment, and socio-economic empowerment to ensure equality, dignity, and social integration. Issues raised 1. Rights of Prostitutes: The petitioner emphasized the need to recognize prostitutes as free citizens with the right to dignity, economic empowerment, social justice, and self-reliance.....
Read MoreArticle 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution provides a citizen with the right to strike. The basic understanding of a strike is that it is a collective stoppage of work by employees aimed at pressuring management to address their demands or concerns. The scenario of the right to strike changes when the case is related to advocates. An advocate is considered an officer of the court and thus, his right to strike is dealt with differently as compared to other people.....
Read MoreThe Sarla Mudgal case (“Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.”) is a key landmark decision in Indian family law. This case addressed critical issues like apostasy i.e changing one’s religion, and bigamy under “section 494 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC)”, offering clarity on what makes a marriage “void” under Section 494 of IPC. It also played an important role in discussions about the need for a Uniform Civil Code in India. Facts....
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of India's landmark decision in “Mr. X v. Hospital Z” (1998) deals with the balance between an individual’s “right to privacy” and society’s “need to protect public health”. The case raised key questions about medical confidentiality, the limits of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the ethical responsibilities of healthcare organizations. This judgment has played a vital role in shaping the legal understanding of fundamental rights in sensitive health-related situations. I. Facts The patient, who....
Read MoreThe landmark case of Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001) dealt with important issues related to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. It focused on interpreting Section 125 of the CrPC, which ensures maintenance for a dependent wife. The case resolved the conflict between personal religious laws and constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act while ensuring that divorced Muslim women receive a fair and reasonable settlement. It managed....
Read MoreThe 1978 case of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani is a landmark judgment in Indian law, particularly concerning The Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It addressed key issues related to the protections during police questioning under Section 161(2) of the CrPC and the Right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Nandini Satpathy, the former Chief Minister of Odisha, refused to answer certain police questions, claiming they were self-incriminating. This judgment is significant for safeguarding individual....
Read MoreIntroduction In the landmark case of Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai and Ors (1987), the Supreme Court of India examined Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which deals with providing maintenance to dependents. The Court interpreted the use of the term "he" in the section and ruled that both sons and daughters have an obligation to support their parents if the parents are unable to take care of themselves. Brief fact of the case....
Read MoreIssues.- Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati) survives in the Constitution after the amendment to the provision by the forty-second amendment was struck down by this Court in Minerva Mills. Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy and followed in Sanjeev Coke must be reconsidered. Whether the phrase ‘material resources of the community’ in Article 39(b) can be interpreted to include resources that are owned privately and not by the state.....
Read MoreIntroduction The K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, also known as the Aadhaar judgment, stands as a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India on the right to privacy and the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme. Delivered on September 26, 2018, the judgment has had far-reaching implications for individual privacy rights, data security, and the interaction between state powers and personal freedoms in India. Background of the Case The Aadhaar project, initiated in 2009 by the Unique....
Read MoreAnti-Foreigners Agitation in Assam (1979–1985).- Led by the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP). The movement demanded.- identification and deportation of illegal migrants protection of Assamese cultural and political identity. Key Causes of the Assam Movement.- Illegal Immigration: The large influx changed the demographics of Assam, creating fears among the local Assamese population about losing their cultural and linguistic identity, as well as concerns over employment and resources. Electoral Manipulation: Illegal immigrants were....
Read More
