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

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The reliefs seeking constitution of a Renaming Commission, directions to the ASI to publish original names, and orders to Centre and States to change records are not granted under Article 32; the Court emphasised that governance must conform to rule of law, secularism and constitutionalism (including Article 14) and that history should not make the nation or its future generations prisoners of the past.

Source excerpt

  • Article 32
  • Article 14
  • Article 21
  • Article 25
  • Article 19
  • Article 29
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &ANR.

The Court held that the present petition is not defeated by repeal of the Ex-communication Act because substantial questions remain whether the Sardar Syedna majority holding that ex-communication is protected by Article 26(b) requires reconsideration in light of the need to balance Article 26(b) with other Part III rights (particularly Article 21) and the concept of constitutional morality. Because identical or closely related questions (including the scope of 'morality' under Articles 25 and 26 and whether Article 26 rights are subject to other Part III provisions) are pending before a nine…

Source excerpt

  • Article 25
  • Article 26(b)
  • Article 21
  • Ex-communication (baraat)
  • Constitutional morality
  • Maharashtra protection of people from social boycott act, 2016
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

KAUSHAL KISHOR versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

The Court answered the reference: the heads enumerated in Article 19(2) are exhaustive and additional restrictions cannot be imposed by invoking other fundamental rights; fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities depending on the nature of their functions; the State has a duty to protect Article 21 rights against threats including by non-State actors where obligations arise; a Minister’s statement is not vicariously attributable to the Government merely by collective responsibility unless it represents Government…

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of speech and expression
  • Article 19(2) restrictions
  • Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty)
  • Horizontal application of fundamental rights
  • Constitutional tort
  • Collective responsibility of ministers
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

JANHIT ABHIYAN versus UNION OF INDIA

By a majority (3:2) the Court held that the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 is constitutionally valid: economic criteria can permissibly be the basis of affirmative action; exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs (SEBCs) from EWS reservation is a form of compensatory discrimination that does not violate the equality code; and a 10% EWS reservation in addition to existing reservations does not breach the 50% ceiling insofar as that ceiling is not inflexible and principally applies to reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4). Consequently the challenge to the 103rd Amendmen…

Source excerpt

  • Constitution (one hundred and third amendment) act, 2019
  • Basic structure doctrine
  • Reservation and affirmative action
  • Article 15
  • Article 16
  • Article 368
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

AISHAT SHIFA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

The Government Order dated 05.02.2022 was a valid exercise of executive power in aid of statutory rule-making (Karnataka Education Act ss.133,145 and Rules r.11); prescribing and enforcing uniform by College Development Committees in state-funded secular schools is within State jurisdiction and is a reasonable regulation promoting equality and secular environment, and restrictions on wearing visible religious symbols (such as hijab) in state school classrooms can be constitutionally permissible subject to Part III tests of reasonableness.

Source excerpt

  • Hijab in educational institutions
  • Uniform dress code
  • Essential religious practice
  • Freedom of religion
  • Freedom of expression
  • Right to equality
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

ASHISH SHELAR & ORS. versus THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ANR.

The resolution suspending the petitioners is unconstitutional, null and ineffective insofar as it directs suspension beyond the remainder of the ongoing Monsoon Session (July 2021); suspension as a legislative self-protective measure must be temporary and conform to the graded approach in Rule 53, and excessive suspension that deprives constituencies of representation and violates Articles 14 and 21 is open to judicial review and must be set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Suspension of mla
  • Rule 53 maharashtra legislative assembly rules, 2015
  • Article 190(4) constitution of india
  • Article 208 constitution of india
  • Article 212(1) constitution of india
  • Natural justice
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SABEEHA FAIKAGE & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The State is not liable for violation of Article 21 for failure to investigate or for direct compensation as the incident involved a foreign flagged vessel and State authorities did not act with malicious intent or proximate negligence. Liability for compensation rests with owners/salvors or their insurers under the Shipping Act of the flag country, and the interim compensation paid is adequate given lack of evidence on age/income of deceased, with additional compensation claims permitted in alternative forums.

Source excerpt

  • Right to life (article 21)
  • Marine casualty investigation
  • Compensation for death
  • Recruitment and placement of seafarers
Read case analysis
Child welfare

BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

The employment of children in circuses is a violation of their fundamental right to education and protection under Article 21A and allied constitutional and statutory provisions. The State has a constitutional mandate to prohibit such employment, liberate the children, prevent trafficking and abuse, and ensure rehabilitation and integration with their families or protective mechanisms.

Source excerpt

  • Prohibition of child labour in circuses
  • Right to free and compulsory education
  • Rehabilitation of rescued children
  • Trafficking in children
  • Protection from physical and sexual abuse
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

UNION OF INDIA versus ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANR.

Election Commission has power to require candidates to disclose details regarding criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications in the absence of legislative provisions, as such disclosure is integral to free and fair elections and the voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a). Directions by the Court are permissible to fill the legislative vacuum until appropriate laws are enacted, provided they do not contradict existing statutes or rules.

Source excerpt

  • Powers of election commission
  • Right to know
  • Freedom of speech
  • Directions of court
  • Disclosure of candidate information
  • Jurisdiction of high court
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.