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
Criminal law

MOHAMMED ZUBAIR versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

The Court held that because the allegations in multiple FIRs arose from the same tweets and a comprehensive investigation was being conducted by the Delhi Special Cell (FIR No.172/2022), the petitioner was entitled to interim bail in the listed FIRs and the investigations of the Uttar Pradesh FIRs related to the same subject matter were to be transferred to the Special Cell of the Delhi Police; the UP SIT was to be disbanded; blanket prohibitions on tweeting as bail conditions were held disproportionate; the petitioner was left free to seek quashing of FIRs before the Delhi High Court under A…

Source excerpt

  • Multiplicity of proceedings
  • Power of arrest (section 41 crpc)
  • Bail conditions (sections 437/438 crpc)
  • Transfer/clubbing of investigations
  • Gag orders and freedom of speech
  • Fir quashing (art.226/section 482 crpc
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. versus IN RE:

Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act requires that truth as a defence be both bona fide and in the public interest; on examination the contemnor’s tweets and amplified averments in his affidavit failed that twin test, were scandalous and capable of undermining public confidence in the judiciary, and thus could not be permitted as a defence; balancing offender, offence and conduct, the Court imposed a nominal fine with conditional imprisonment and debarment rather than heavier punishment.

Source excerpt

  • Truth as defence under section 13 contempt of courts act, 1971
  • Apology and purging contempt
  • Role and duties of advocates
  • Sub judice restrictions and media
  • Sentencing and debarment
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

RE : VIJAY KURLE & ORS. versus RE:

The Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt stems from Article 129 and cannot be abrogated by statute; Section 15 of the Contempt Act is procedural and does not prevent the Court from taking suo motu cognizance without consent of the Attorney-General/Solicitor-General; the notice issued here complied with Form I and the three respondents (Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh C. Ojha) were held guilty of contempt while Mathews Nedumpara was discharged.

Source excerpt

  • Suo motu proceedings
  • Article 129 of the constitution
  • Article 142(2) of the constitution
  • Contempt of courts act, 1971 s.15
  • Rules to regulate proceedings for contempt of the supreme court, 1975 r.3 & form i
  • Form i notice requirements
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

JUSTICE (RETD.) MARKANDEY KATJU versus THE LOK SABHA & ANR.

The immunity under Article 105(2) does not extend to House resolutions condemning opinions expressed outside Parliament; judicial review is maintainable. The resolutions passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha condemning the petitioner's remarks did not impair his freedom of speech or inflict any civil consequence. No violation of natural justice occurred, as no penalty or adverse civil effect resulted from the resolutions. The petition is dismissed as no relief is warranted.

Source excerpt

  • Parliamentary privilege
  • Freedom of speech
  • Natural justice
  • Rules of procedure
  • Resolutions of parliament
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.