Binoy Visman v Union of India

Article 14 is fons juris of the Constitution, and the fountainhead of justice. It must be noted though, that differential treatment per se do not amount to violation of Article 14, it is necessary that differential treatment is based on NO reasonable basis.

Virender Nath Gautam vs Satpal Singh

Distinguishing between ‘material facts’ and ‘particular’ in regards with Civil Petition, and more specifically in regards with election disputes, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations:

Nar Singh Pal v Union of India

Can a person waive off any of his fundamental rights?
Fundamental rights as guaranteed by the constitution were made, not only to benefit individuals but also to secure the interest of the community at large. Further, it is also a possibility wherein for a promise of transitory and immediate benefits, individuals could be lured into (worst forced to) forgo their precious personal freedoms.
Although it is to be noted that in the USA, one can waive one’s fundamental rights.

The State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkarhabib Mohammed

Article 14 secures all persons within territories of India against arbitrary law as well as arbitrary actions of law. “Reasonable Classification” was a test that was proposed to check whether any legislation is discriminatory and hence violative of Article 14.

The Rajanagaram Village vs P. Veerasami Mudaly

In Auction sales, the acceptance of a bid may be of three kinds:
1. Provisional Acceptance
2. Conditional Acceptance
3. Absolute Acceptance
In this judgment, Madras High Court observes what these acceptances mean, especially in the context of government contracts.

Hubbard v Vosper

Many creators creating Youtube videos and other art forms approach me with a query whether they can copy a particular scene from a movie for mimicry, criticism, or creating a derivative art form, etc. And if they can copy how much can they copy, how long that particular scene can be. Though there does not exist any straightjacket formula for these questions. This is dealt with by the Doctrine of Fair Use/ Fair dealing, and the usage of whether permissible or impermissible would depend on case to case basis. This judgment beautifully captures the essence of fair use.

Thana Singh v Central Bureau of Narcotics

Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a police officer to arrest a person accused of being involved in any cognizable offense. The power to arrest had no requirements, this leads to an indiscriminate arrest, taking cognizance of the same the Parliament in 2009 amended the provision to add certain riders to the same through 41 (1)(b) CrPC. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court through its judgments mandated that the magistrate assess whether the requirements have been complied with. Legislative, as well as judicial reforms, have been able to tackle the menace of unnecessary arrest, but there is still a long road ahead.

Sukhdev Singh v Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and anothers.

The impact of the growth of Corporations on the socio-economic life of people has been felt in the daily life of people, Government has also taken up various social and economic functions through various structures, which do not fit neatly into preconceived notions of legal categories. Whilst interpreting the definition of state under the aegis […]

R. K. Garg and ors v. Union of India

Relationship between morality and law is very intriguing. But when it comes to application of the same, through courts of law, how is it supposed to play? This judgment by the Supreme Court throws light on the same.

Rex v Almon

Judiciary is “Guardians of the rule of law”. Whereas for the performance of its duty as Guardians of the rule of law, the court’s authority must be respected and protected at all costs. Therefore to maintain sanctity to the court and facilitate them to perform their functions effectively, they have been entrusted with extraordinary powers of Contempt of Court, to punish those who attempt to undermine the authority of the court or try to obstruct them from discharging their duties of scandalizing them.