This case stands as a significant milestone in environmental law, marking the first introduction of the Polluter Pay Principle (PPP). Also referred to as the principle of extended producer responsibility, PPP is a legal concept that holds polluters accountable for the costs associated with managing and mitigating environmental harm. Under this principle, individuals or entities responsible for causing pollution are required to bear the expenses necessary to address and prevent adverse impacts on human health and the environment. Fact In....
Read MoreThe case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra is a landmark case to analyze the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It began when Mrs. Rupa Ashok Hurra was dissatisfied with a decision of Apex Court and under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution sought a review of the judgment. But her petition was dismissed. Peculiarly, during the dismissal, the bench identified several important constitutional questions and sent them to a larger constitutional bench. These issues centered on whether the....
Read MoreFacts The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondent for failing to fulfil a financial obligation. The respondent had issued three cheques to partially settle the debt arising from the purchase of cement from the appellant. However, these cheques were returned by the bank with the remark “payment stopped by the drawer.” The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether a cheque returned due to a “stop payment” order would....
Read MoreFacts: The petitioner, an organization dedicated to freeing bonded laborers, surveyed stone quarries in the Faridabad District near Delhi. The survey revealed that many workers, originally from Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan, were enduring extremely harsh working conditions, with several of them being bonded laborers. Deeply concerned, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Supreme Court, bringing these issues to its attention, and filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The PIL claimed that hundreds of workers were trapped....
Read MoreFACTS IN BRIEF During India's economic reforms, the Public Sector Disinvestment Commission recommended privatizing the government-owned company BALCO. Initially, the plan was to sell 40% of its shares immediately and reduce the government’s ownership to 26% within two years, with the long-term goal of complete disinvestment. However, the proposal was later revised to include the transfer of 51% of the government’s ownership along with management control. This revised plan was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment. Following this decision,....
Read MoreThe 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 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 More
