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

PADI KAUSHIK REDDY ETC. versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS ETC.

The Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the Single Judge's order which merely directed the Speaker to fix a schedule; given the Speaker acts as a tribunal amenable to judicial review and the Speaker had inordinate delay (not issuing notices for months), the Supreme Court quashed the Division Bench order and directed the Speaker to conclude the pending disqualification proceedings in respect of the MLAs as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months.

Source excerpt

  • Tenth schedule
  • Defection
  • Disqualification petitions
  • Speaker/chairman powers
  • Time-bound determination of proceedings
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

K. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act is subject to Article 170 of the Constitution and cannot be implemented in contravention of the proviso to Article 170(3) which bars readjustment of seats until census figures after 2026 are published; the delimitation undertaken for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is governed by a distinct constitutional and statutory regime and does not entitle Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to parity; the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to override this constitutional bar; accordingly the petitions fail.

Source excerpt

  • Article 14
  • Article 170
  • Section 26 of the andhra pradesh reorganisation act, 2014
  • Delimitation
  • Doctrine of legitimate expectation
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

KISHORCHANDRA CHHANGANLAL RATHOD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Article 329(a) does not render orders of the Delimitation Commission completely immune from judicial review; constitutional courts can review delimitation orders within a limited sphere, particularly where orders are manifestly arbitrary or made mala fide, and may grant appropriate remedies, but such review must respect principles limiting interference to avoid disrupting the electoral process.

Source excerpt

  • Judicial review
  • Delimitation of constituencies
  • Article 329
  • Delimitation act, 2002
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

AFJAL ANSARI versus STATE OF UP

The majority held that Section 389(1) CrPC empowers appellate courts to suspend the execution of sentence and, in exceptional cases where conviction would cause irreparable statutory consequences that cannot be compensated (notably disqualification under the Representation of the People Act), the court may suspend the conviction; applying those parameters to the facts (weak cogent evidence, reliance on an old FIR leading to acquittal, and the irreversible consequences of disqualification and loss of representation), the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal and suspended the conviction s…

Source excerpt

  • Suspension of conviction under section 389(1) crpc
  • Disqualification under representation of the people act, 1951
  • Moral turpitude
  • Bail
  • Stay of conviction
  • Judicial notice
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC AREAS AND ANR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The 2006 Delimitation Notification cannot be called into question or amended by the Delimitation Commission once published (protected by Article 329 and the Delimitation Act); the Election Commission lacks statutory power under the Delimitation Act 2002 and the Representation of People’s Act 1950 to amend the 2008 Order to incorporate post-2001 additions to the Scheduled Tribes lists (such as Limboo-Tamang) because Sections relied upon (Section 11 Delimitation Act and Section 9(1)(aa) RP Act) permit only ministerial corrections, consolidation with specified delimitation orders or changes cons…

Source excerpt

  • Delimitation
  • Reservation for scheduled tribes
  • Article 324 powers
  • Articles 330 and 332 (reservation/proportionality)
  • Article 329 (bar on judicial review)
  • Article 371f (special provisions for sikkim)
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SITA SOREN versus UNION OF INDIA

Prima facie the correctness of the majority view in PV Narasimha Rao (1998) 4 SCC 626 should be reconsidered by a larger Bench of seven judges because the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) has wide ramifications for parliamentary democracy and probity in public life, and judicial discipline requires that such doubts be referred to a Bench larger than that which pronounced the earlier decision.

Source excerpt

  • Parliamentary immunity
  • Article 105(2)
  • Article 194(2)
  • Bribery
  • Reconsideration of precedent
  • Judicial discipline
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

ADIVASIS FOR SOCIAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Central and State laws applicable to the State continue to apply to Scheduled Areas unless the Governor, exercising power under Clause 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule, issues a notification excluding or modifying their application; the Governor cannot enact new laws beyond exclusion/modification; the Governor's powers do not override Fundamental Rights (including Article 19(1)(e)), so non-tribals have the right to reside and, if ordinarily resident and eligible, to vote in Scheduled Areas; reservation of constituencies must follow Articles 330 and 332; therefore the High Court correctly dismissed…

Source excerpt

  • Applicability of central and state laws to scheduled areas
  • Governor's powers under clause 5 of the fifth schedule
  • Fundamental rights (article 19(1)(e)) and their application in scheduled areas
  • Right to vote and electoral rolls under representation of the people act, 1950
  • Reservation of constituencies under articles 330 and 332
  • Applicability of land acquisition act, 1894
Read case analysis
Criminal law

SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BADAL versus BALWANT SINGH KHERA AND ORS.

On the averments in the complaint and the material recorded during the inquiry (even assuming those averments true), the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B IPC are not made out (no false document was made/produced and no dishonest inducement to deliver property was shown); continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process, hence the summoning order and consequent proceedings are quashed.

Source excerpt

  • Cheating
  • Forgery
  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
  • Section 29-a representation of people act, 1951
  • Section 482 cr.p.c.
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

HAJI ABDUL GANI KHAN & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Delimitation Commission constituted under the Delimitation Act, 2002 by notification dated 6 March 2020 (as amended) was lawfully established pursuant to the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 which made Article 239A applicable to J&K and made the Delimitation Act applicable to the Union Territory; s.62(b) validly substituted the year 2001 with 2011 for delimitation of J&K, authorizing delimitation on 2011 census figures; the time target in s.10(6) of the Delimitation Act is not mandatory and does not preclude constitution of the Commission; exclusion of the four North-Eastern Sta…

Source excerpt

  • Applicability of article 170 to union territories
  • Delimitation of constituencies
  • Jammu and kashmir reorganisation act, 2019 – ss.60-63 and s.13
  • Delimitation act, 2002 – s.9, s.10(6), s.10a
  • Use of 2011 census for readjustment
  • Validity of delimitation commission notifications
Read case analysis
Electoral law

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which permits a person to contest from more than one constituency (subject to the statutory limits) is a matter of legislative policy for Parliament; absent manifest arbitrariness or a violation of Articles 14 or 19, the Court will not declare the provision unconstitutional, and therefore the petition challenging Section 33(7) is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Section 33(7) representation of the people act, 1951
  • Multiple candidatures/more than one constituency
  • Fundamental rights - articles 14 and 19
  • Bye-elections and public expenditure
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.