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

SUJATA BORA versus COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS.

The appellant was wrongly denied employment under the 2019 notification; AIIMS medical board found 57% disability (above benchmark 40%), rendering her eligible for appointment in the reserved quota; the Division Bench erred in setting aside the Single Judge's order on the ground of panel expiry; the Court directed creation of a supernumerary post and directed Coal India Limited to provide a suitable position and reasonable accommodations (desk job with separate computer and keyboard as per universal design) and to post the appellant at North Eastern Coalfields, Margherita, Tinsukia, Assam, ex…

Source excerpt

  • Reasonable accommodation
  • Multiple disability
  • Benchmark disability
  • Intersectionality of disability and gender
  • Corporate social responsibility (csr)
  • Recruitment and medical examination
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Article 32 empowers this Court to reopen the sentencing stage of a capital case that has attained finality where there is a clear, specific breach of procedural safeguards now recognised as integral to Articles 14 and 21; where conviction is left undisturbed, the Court set aside the affirmed death sentence and remitted the matter to this Court for a fresh hearing on sentence alone to be conducted in conformity with the directions in Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Source excerpt

  • Article 32 jurisdiction
  • Death penalty
  • Sentencing guidelines (manoj v. state of m.p.)
  • Retrospective application of judicial decisions
  • Procedural fairness in capital cases
Read case analysis
Criminal law

VICTIM ‘X’ versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

The High Court's bail order dated 18.01.2024 was quashed and bail cancelled because (a) the victim was not impleaded or heard as required by Section 15A(3) SC/ST Act, and (b) the bail order was cryptic/unreasoned in a case involving grave allegations of sexual exploitation and torture by a person in authority, release on bail would likely prejudice the trial by enabling witness intimidation, and reinstatement of the accused demonstrated influence; accordingly this Court in exercise of Article 136 quashed the impugned order and cancelled bail.

Source excerpt

  • Bail
  • Cancellation of bail
  • Sexual exploitation
  • Torture
  • Victim hearing under s.15a(3) sc/st act
  • Witness protection
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

L. MURUGANANTHAM versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings that the appellant’s arrest and certain police conduct constituted violations warranting compensation, affirmed enhancement of compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.4,00,000/- to be borne by the State and Rs.1,00,000/- recoverable from Respondent No.2) as fair given the appellant’s disability and deterioration, and found no material to establish wilful negligence by the prison authorities during the short period of incarceration; accordingly the High Court’s dismissal of the complaint against the prison authorities and the direction for departmen…

Source excerpt

  • Prisoners with disabilities
  • Reasonable accommodation
  • Compensation for human rights violations
  • Prison accessibility and infrastructure
  • Healthcare in prisons
  • Prison reform and visitorial systems
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

K. UMADEVI versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant is entitled to maternity leave under FR 101(a) because her two biological children from a prior marriage were born before her entry into service and are in the custody of their father; the two‑child policy and the object of maternity benefit must be harmonized purposively, and Deepika Singh supports granting maternity leave in such circumstances; the Division Bench decision denying leave was set aside and maternity benefits were to be released to the appellant within two months.

Source excerpt

  • Maternity leave
  • Maternity benefit
  • Reproductive rights
  • Right to health
  • Right to privacy
  • Two child norm
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court held that existing digital KYC frameworks, as applied, result in accessibility barriers for persons with disabilities (notably facial/eye disfigurements and blindness), violating the accessibility and non-discrimination obligations under the RPwD Act, 2016 and constitutional guarantees; accordingly the Court directed regulatory authorities to mandate accessibility standards, adopt alternative liveness and authentication methods, preserve paper/offline KYC options in specified cases, implement audits, grievance mechanisms, human review of rejections, training, and other measures set…

Source excerpt

  • Digital kyc
  • Accessibility
  • Reasonable accommodation
  • Liveness check
  • Facial recognition
  • Web content accessibility (wcag)
Read case analysis
Criminal law

PINKI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

The High Court, in granting bail to multiple accused in organised interstate child-trafficking offences, failed to exercise its discretion judiciously by inadequately weighing the serious nature of the crimes, the modus operandi, the societal interest and the real risk that accused would abscond or interfere with the trial; accordingly the impugned bail orders were set aside, the accused were directed to surrender and specific directions were issued to expedite trials and protect victims.

Source excerpt

  • Bail cancellation
  • Interstate child-trafficking rackets
  • Witness protection and intimidation
  • Investigation and prosecution of trafficking
  • Directions to expedite trials
  • Suspension of hospital licence for newborn trafficking
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

RAJEEB KALITA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Access to clean, safe and hygienic toilet facilities in Court and Tribunal premises is a facet of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 and the States/UTs and High Courts have a constitutional and statutory duty to ensure construction, maintenance and accessibility of separate toilet facilities for males, females, persons with disabilities and transgender persons in all judicial premises; accordingly the Court issued mandatory directions for constitution of committees, planning, funding, maintenance, grievance redressal and compliance reporting.

Source excerpt

  • Right to sanitation
  • Article 21 (right to life)
  • Toilet facilities in courts/tribunals
  • Transgender rights
  • Directive principles of state policy
  • Accessibility for persons with disabilities
Read case analysis
Criminal law

RAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAY versus SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS.

Given the grave allegations of public disrobing, assault and accusations of witchcraft that affronted the victims' dignity, the High Court's stay of proceedings was inappropriate; the State and courts have a heightened duty to protect dignity under Article 21, and therefore the matter is remitted to the District Court to proceed in accordance with law with the trial directed to proceed on a day-to-day basis and specified interim directions (including appearance on 15 January 2025).

Source excerpt

  • Witchcraft accusations
  • Disrobing and assault
  • Dignity (article 21)
  • Stay of criminal proceedings under section 482 crpc
  • Section 156(3) crpc
  • Day-to-day trial directions
Read case analysis
Demolition of property

IN RE: DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES versus

The executive may not, merely because a person is accused (or even convicted), demolish his or her residential or commercial property without following the due process prescribed by law; such demolitions that are punitive, arbitrary or discriminatory violate the rule of law, separation of powers and Article 21 (right to life and shelter). The Court therefore issued binding pan-India procedural directions under Article 142 to ensure notice, personal hearing, reasoned final orders, limited implementation periods, opportunity for appellate/judicial scrutiny, video-recording of demolition, and ac…

Source excerpt

  • Right to shelter
  • Article 21
  • Rule of law
  • Separation of powers
  • Public trust and accountability
  • Due process
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.