Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional law

DINESH BIWAJI ASHTIKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Section 12(1)(c) imposes on neighbourhood unaided schools an obligation to admit at least 25% children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups and this statutory mandate requires enforceable subordinate legislation and procedural measures; appropriate authorities are directed to prepare rules and regulations under Section 38 in consultation with NCPCR and SCPCRs to ensure transparent, accessible admission processes, and NCPCR is impleaded for monitoring and compliance with timelines ordered by the Court.

Source excerpt

  • Article 21a right to education
  • Section 12 rte act 2009 (25% neighbourhood school admissions)
  • Implementation of rte act
  • Ncpcr standard operating procedure
  • Duty‑bearers under rte act
  • Rule‑making under section 38 rte act
Read case analysis
Criminal law

IN RE : ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTS versus

The Court held that while majority of States with central funding complied with directions to set up exclusive POCSO courts, certain States still need to create more POCSO courts given pendency; timelines under the POCSO Act must be adhered to and Union and State Governments must sensitize officials, create dedicated courts on top priority, ensure timely filing of chargesheets and completion of trials; accordingly the suo-moto proceedings were closed.

Source excerpt

  • Special pocso courts
  • Timelines under pocso act
  • Forensic science laboratories
  • Sensitization of officials
  • Central funding scheme for courts
  • Compensation to victims
Read case analysis
Child rights

MAATR SPARSH AN INITIATIVE BY AVYAAN FOUNDATION versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

The State is under an obligation under Article 21, supported by national statutes and international norms, to ensure adequate facilities and an environment to facilitate breastfeeding; accordingly the Court directed the Union to send a reminder communication incorporating the Ministry advisory dated 27.02.2024 to Chief Secretaries/Administrators of all States/UTs, and permitted the Union to issue further advisories to ensure setting apart of separate rooms/accommodation for child care/feeding and nursing at public places and in PSUs, and required implementation in existing and future public b…

Source excerpt

  • Right to breast-feed
  • Right to life (article 21)
  • Directive principles (articles 39(f), 47)
  • State obligation to provide public breastfeeding/child-care facilities
  • Best interests of the child
Read case analysis
Child marriage

SOCIETY FOR ENLIGHTENMENT AND VOLUNTARY ACTION & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court held that child marriage violates constitutional guarantees including Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty encompassing autonomy, reproductive freedom, health, education and childhood). To give effect to PCMA’s preventive and protective objectives the Court issued detailed directions: States/UTs must appoint exclusive district-level CMPOs with resources and training, strengthen district-level enforcement (collectors and SPs), empower specialized police and units, enable magistrates to take suo motu preventive action, institute monitoring, community engagement, education (i…

Source excerpt

  • Prohibition of child marriage act, 2006
  • Child marriage prohibition officers
  • Injunctions under pcma
  • Pocso act interaction
  • Juvenile justice (care and protection of children) act, 2015
  • Maintenance and custody of child brides
Read case analysis
Criminal law

JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE & ANR. versus S. HARISH & ORS.

Section 15 of POCSO (post-2019 amendment) penalises storage or possession of child pornographic material where done with particular intentions under ss.(1)-(3); constructive/intangible possession (including viewing with control) can constitute possession under s.15; Section 67B IT Act is broad and penalises multiple electronic acts involving children; Section 30 POCSO's statutory presumption of culpable mental state may be invoked once prosecution proves foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt and may be considered by a High Court in a quashing petition where such foundational facts are pr…

Source excerpt

  • Pocso s.15
  • Pocso s.30 (presumption of culpable mental state)
  • It act s.67b
  • Constructive possession
  • Inchoate offences
  • Quashing under s.482 cr.p.c.
Read case analysis
Juvenile justice

CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

The three-month period in section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for completion of preliminary assessment under section 15 is directory, not mandatory; the period can be extended (for reasons recorded in writing) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate; 'Children's Court' and 'Court of Sessions' are to be read interchangeably (Children's Court primarily); an appeal under section 101(2) should be filed within 30 days (with condonation for sufficient cause); the Principal Magistrate's order of 05.04.2022 was final under s.7(4)…

Source excerpt

  • Preliminary assessment under section 14(3) of the juvenile justice act, 2015
  • Appeal under section 101(2) of the juvenile justice act, 2015
  • Children's court vs court of sessions
  • Revisional jurisdiction of high court under section 102
  • Procedural recording and identification of members and presence
Read case analysis
Protection of children from sexual offences act, 2012 (pocso)

BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The POCSO Rules, 2020 create a legal entitlement to a support person whose role includes accompanying and assisting the child through investigation, medical examination, recording of statements, depositions and court proceedings, providing information and psychosocial support, and monitoring; the State must operationalise this entitlement by framing state-level rules/guidelines under Section 39, empanelling and training support persons, instituting reporting and monitoring mechanisms, and ensuring adequate remuneration; specific directions were issued to the State of Uttar Pradesh and to NCPC…

Source excerpt

  • Support person under pocso rules, 2020
  • Implementation and monitoring of rules
  • Entitlements under form-a
  • Training, empanelment and remuneration of support persons
  • State-level guidelines under section 39 of pocso act
Read case analysis
Juvenile justice (care and protection of children) act, 2015

BARUN CHANDRA THAKUR versus MASTER BHOLU & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that the proviso to section 15(1) (allowing the Board to take assistance of experienced psychologists/psycho-social workers or other experts) operates mandatorily unless the Juvenile Justice Board itself includes at least one practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry; the Board and Children’s Court erred in refusing to provide the SIR and expert report to the respondent and in denying adequate opportunity including cross-examination and in declining to follow the psychologist’s recommendation for further assessment without cogent reas…

Source excerpt

  • Preliminary assessment under s.15
  • Confidentiality of reports (s.99)
  • Social investigation report (sir)
  • Assistance of experts
  • Natural justice and reasonable opportunity
  • Timeline for proceedings
Read case analysis
Criminal law

GANGADHAR NARAYAN NAYAK @ GANGADHAR HIREGUTTI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

The Bench was split. Justice Indira Banerjee held that Section 19 of POCSO, read as a whole and beginning with a non-obstante clause, applies to all offences under the Act (including s.23) and mandates expeditious action for child protection under ss.19(5)-(6); accordingly the procedure under s.155(2) Cr.P.C. is not required to be followed for investigation of offences under s.23 POCSO and the Special Court's cognizance was sustainable. Justice J.K. Maheshwari disagreed and held that POCSO does not classify all offences as cognizable and does not prescribe the procedure for investigation; in…

Source excerpt

  • Protection of children from sexual offences act, 2012 s.23 (media/identity of child victims)
  • Section 155(2) cr.p.c. (investigation of non-cognizable cases)
  • Application of cr.p.c. to special enactments
  • Investigation and cognizance procedure
  • Media reporting and child privacy
Read case analysis
Child rights

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS & ORS. versus DR. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.

On the facts the West Bengal Commission had not started an inquiry before NCPCR's inquiry commenced on 07.03.2017; Section 13(2) does not create an absolute ouster between the National and State Commissions but prevents duplicate inquiries where a State Commission has already commenced an inquiry; State Commissions may inquire into matters within their purview even if they have inter-State or international ramifications and the National Commission or other State Commissions should cooperate; police officials must furnish information requested by the Commissions and should not refuse on jurisd…

Source excerpt

  • Commissions for protection of child rights act, 2005
  • Section 13(2) cpcr act
  • Functions and powers of ncpcr and state commissions
  • Cooperation between central and state bodies
  • Duty of police to furnish information
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.