Case Summary

Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Ors. [W.P. (Civil) 373 of 2006]

This Case Summary is written by Yazhini B, a student at School of Excellence in Law SYNOPSIS The temple of Lord Ayyappa situated in Kerala restricts the entry of women within their menstruating age that are between the age of 10 to 50 years stating that the god is in the form of " Naishtika… Continue reading Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Ors. [W.P. (Civil) 373 of 2006]

Case Summary

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [WP (Criminal) No. 76 of 2016]

This Case Summary is written by Mariyah Saifuddin Sariya, a student at MMM’s Shankarrao Chavan Law College, Pune Decriminalizing All Consensual Sex Among Adults, Including Homosexual Sex. SYNOPSIS Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) imposes criminal liability on the one who ‘voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature’. When the said… Continue reading Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [WP (Criminal) No. 76 of 2016]

Case Summary

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala

This Case Summary is written by Nupur Misra, a student at Army Law College, Pune SYNOPSIS The Sabarimala Temple, the dwelling of Lord Ayyappan, is located in the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Perinad Village of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. It prohibits the entry of women in their ‘menstruating years’ (between the ages of 10 to… Continue reading Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala

Case Summary

SUSHILA AGGARWAL V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [2020 5 SCC 1]

This Case Summary is written by Shreya Sanjay Kumar Pandey, a student at Law College, Dehradun SYNOPSIS Anticipatory bail is a common recited word by the law “known” whenever they heard about the term arrest. This common word is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which throws glimpses upon its procedure. Section 438… Continue reading SUSHILA AGGARWAL V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [2020 5 SCC 1]

Case Summary

I.C GOLAKNATH & ORS. VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANRS.  (1967 AIR 1643)

FACTS: The petitioner, in this case, was the family of Henry and William Golaknath, who had 500 acres of farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab. According to the 1953 Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, the state government of Punjab held that both the brothers could distribute thirty acres of land to each. In contrast, a few… Continue reading I.C GOLAKNATH & ORS. VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANRS.  (1967 AIR 1643)

Case Summary

SHANKARI PRASAD SINGHDEO vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (AIR 1951 SC 455)

FACTS The political party which was in power had carried out specific agrarian reforms in states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh by enacting legislation which may be compendiously known as Zamindari Abolition Act.Certain Zamindars who were feeling aggrieved had challenged the enactments mentioned above in the court of law on the grounds that it… Continue reading SHANKARI PRASAD SINGHDEO vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (AIR 1951 SC 455)

Case Summary

JOSEPH SHINE VS UNION OF INDIA 2018 SC 1676

FACTS In this case, Public Interest Litigation has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court of India for challenging the validity of Section 497 of the IPC along with Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This petition has been filled by Joseph Shine, who is a non-residence of Kerala. … Continue reading JOSEPH SHINE VS UNION OF INDIA 2018 SC 1676

Case Summary

RAJBALA V. STATE OF HARYANA

FACTS Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 8 of 2015), which introduced the minimum educational qualification for candidates to contest the panchayat elections. The Bench consisting of Justice Chelameswar and A.M.Sapre held that both the rights, namely “Right to Vote” and… Continue reading RAJBALA V. STATE OF HARYANA

Case Summary

PRITHIVI RAJ CHAUHAN VS UNION OF INDIA

Date of Judgment: February 10, 2020 Judges: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat Facts - Here the petitioners have questioned the provisions inserted by carving out section 18A of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes (prevention and atrocities) Act. Question of Law- Whether Section 18A of the Scheduled caste and… Continue reading PRITHIVI RAJ CHAUHAN VS UNION OF INDIA