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

RAVINDRA PRATAP SHAHI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

The Court reiterated and enforced the Anil Rai guidelines: registries of High Courts must furnish monthly lists of cases where judgments reserved are not pronounced, repeat this for three months, and if a judgment remains undelivered after three months place the matter before the Chief Justice who shall direct the concerned Bench to pronounce within two weeks or assign it to another Bench; parties retain the right to move the Chief Justice if judgment is not pronounced within six months to withdraw and reassign the case.

Source excerpt

  • Delay in pronouncing judgments
  • Directions to high courts
  • Reserved judgments
  • Judicial process and deprecation
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

M/S SHIKHAR CHEMICALS versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Having received a written request from the Chief Justice of India, and while reiterating that the Court may intervene under Article 136 when institutional concerns affect the rule of law, the Supreme Court deleted paragraphs 25 and 26 of its order dated 04.08.2025, left the matter to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to look into, and disposed of the Special Leave Petition after remanding the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Source excerpt

  • Reconsideration of directions
  • Withdrawal of criminal roster
  • Master of the roster
  • Honor and dignity of the judiciary
  • Article 136
  • Quashing of criminal complaint
Read case analysis
Criminal law

KAUSHAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The strictures passed by the High Court were expunged because High Courts should avoid personal adverse observations against subordinate judicial officers on the judicial side, the appellant was not given an opportunity to explain, and the High Court's order was founded on a precedent that had been reversed; accordingly the impugned order was modified by expunging the strictures and directing communication to Registrar Generals regarding consideration of a disclosure rule for bail applications.

Source excerpt

  • Strictures against judicial officers
  • Expunction of strictures
  • Bail
  • Criminal antecedents
  • High court rules
Read case analysis
Service law

PINKY MEENA versus THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR & ANR.

As the appellant had tendered resignation before the interview, non-disclosure of past government service on the checklist was not a material irregularity warranting discharge; alleged misconduct concerning degrees related to her prior service as a teacher and did not justify discharge from judicial service; the discharge order violated principles of natural justice and was stigmatic in the circumstances, and therefore the show cause notice and discharge order were quashed and the appellant was to be reinstated with consequential benefits (except back wages) and treated as confirmed.

Source excerpt

  • Probation
  • Discharge from service
  • Non-disclosure of past government service
  • Natural justice
  • Reinstatement
  • Gender representation in judiciary
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

GULSHAN BAJWA versus REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.

The appellant's repeated conduct — including threats to opposing counsel in court, filing baseless and libellous allegations against judges, failing to appear despite service attempts, and persistent forum shopping — constituted criminal contempt that interfered with the administration of justice; the High Court rightly convicted him and rejected his apology as not bonafide; conviction is upheld but sentence is modified from three months' civil imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the Court taking into account the appellant's age and medical ailments.

Source excerpt

  • Suo motu contempt jurisdiction
  • Criminal contempt
  • Judicial independence
  • Apology in contempt proceedings
  • Forum shopping
  • Service of notice
Read case analysis
Criminal law

RAJPAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn; the Court reiterated that matters arising out of the same FIR should be listed before the same Judge to avoid conflicting bail orders and that parity among co-accused is not automatic but depends on relevant facts; the Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court to communicate this order and the order dated 31.07.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023 to the Registrars (Judicial) of all High Courts to place the matter before the respective Chief Justices.

Source excerpt

  • Bail
  • Parity among co-accused
  • Case listing
  • High court practice
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

The Supreme Court directed Chief Justices of High Courts to register a suo-motu matter titled "In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs", constitute Special Benches to monitor and ensure expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs/MLAs, to designate specified courts at district level for prioritized hearing (priority to offences punishable with death/life, then imprisonment of five years or more, then other offences), to minimize adjournments, to review and where appropriate vacate stays, to ensure infrastructure and technology for designated courts, and to maintain public, district-wise…

Source excerpt

  • Expeditious trial of criminal cases against elected representatives
  • Designation of courts for priority hearing
  • Monitoring by high courts and special benches
  • Stay of trial and vacation of stay orders
  • Witness protection
  • Data on case pendency
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

YASHPAL JAIN versus SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS

The High Court's order quashing the trial court and revisional court orders was set aside because on the record the respondents had themselves sought substitution of the appellant as legal representative in WP(M/S) No.342/2005, the appellant's affidavits did not admit Manoj Kumar Jain to be the legal representative, and Manoj Kumar had indicated he would not press his substitution; accordingly the trial court order dated 09.05.2012 (as affirmed on 13.12.2012) permitting substitution of the appellant was rightly sustained and must be given effect to; additionally the Court issued directions to…

Source excerpt

  • Substitution of legal representative
  • Condonation of delay
  • Adjournments
  • Case flow management
  • Judicial delay
  • Alternative dispute resolution
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SARVESH MATHUR versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

The Supreme Court directed that High Courts cannot arbitrarily deny access to video conferencing or hybrid hearings and must put in place uniform SOPs, provide free adequate internet/Wi-Fi within court precincts, publish links in cause-lists without prior application requirements, avoid age or other arbitrary eligibility criteria, and that State and Union authorities must fund and ensure requisite infrastructure for High Courts and tribunals within specified deadlines to secure access to justice through technology.

Source excerpt

  • Video conferencing
  • Hybrid hearings
  • E-filing
  • Wi-fi and internet connectivity in courts
  • Standard operating procedure for virtual hearings
Read case analysis
Advocates and bar associations

DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION DEHRADUN versus ISHWAR SHANDILYA & ORS

The Court directed that all High Courts should constitute Grievance Redressal Committees in their respective High Courts, to be headed by the Chief Justice and consisting of two other senior Judges (one each from service and the Bar) nominated by the Chief Justice, along with the Advocate General, Chairman of the State Bar Council and President of the High Court Bar Association; High Courts may also constitute similar committees at the District Court level; reiterated that no advocate can go on strike or abstain from court work and genuine grievances may be ventilated before such committees.

Source excerpt

  • Grievance redressal committee
  • Strikes by advocates
  • Bar council of india
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.