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

DR. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH versus BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (THROUGH SECRETARY) AND ORS.

The writ petition is maintainable because Article 212(1) does not bar judicial review of legislative decisions or administrative actions of legislative bodies; Constitutional Courts can review the proportionality of punishments imposed on members; applying that principle, the expulsion of the petitioner was excessive and disproportionate and therefore the Court, exercising its powers under Article 142, treated the period already undergone as suspension, set aside the expulsion insofar as punishment and directed immediate reinstatement while quashing the Election Commission press note regardin…

Source excerpt

  • Article 212(1) maintainability
  • Judicial review of legislative/administrative actions
  • Proportionality of punishment
  • Expulsion of legislator
  • Article 142 remedial powers
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

STATE OF PUNJAB versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

The Governor cannot withhold action on Bills passed by the State Legislature indefinitely; where the Governor withholds assent under Article 200 the Governor must, as soon as possible, follow the first proviso and return non-Money Bills to the legislature for reconsideration, and the Governor is part of the legislature under Article 168 and bound by the constitutional regime; further, the Speaker lawfully exercised his exclusive jurisdiction under Rule 16 to reconvene sittings adjourned sine die without prorogation, and the sittings of 19-20 June 2023 and 20 October 2023 were constitutionally…

Source excerpt

  • Governor assent to bills
  • Adjournment and prorogation
  • Speaker's powers over procedure
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court determined that substantial questions of law concerning the scope of Parliament's power under Article 239-AA(7) and whether Parliament can abrogate the constitutional principles of governance for NCTD require adjudication by a Constitution Bench; accordingly these questions were referred to a Constitution Bench. The Court also held that the settled position is that Parliament may enact a law granting the Union executive power over services, but the validity of the exercise of that power in the present Ordinance must be examined by the Constitution Bench. The interim application for…

Source excerpt

  • Article 239-aa interpretation
  • Parliamentary lawmaking power
  • Executive power over services
  • Ordinance validity
  • Distribution of powers between union and nctd
  • Seventh schedule entry 41
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SUBHASH DESAI versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNOR OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

This Court referred the question of whether issuance of a notice to remove the Speaker bars the Speaker from adjudicating Tenth Schedule petitions (Nabam Rebia) to a larger Bench. It held that ordinarily the Speaker is the proper authority to decide disqualification petitions and courts should not adjudicate them at first instance absent exceptional circumstances; MLAs retain the right to participate in House proceedings while petitions are pending and such proceedings are not rendered 'subject to' the eventual outcome of disqualification petitions; the Whip and Leader must be those appointed…

Source excerpt

  • Tenth schedule (anti-defection)
  • Election symbols (reservation and allotment) order, 1968 para 15
  • Governor discretion to call floor test
  • Role and removal of speaker
  • Disqualification proceedings
  • Whip and leader recognition
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

G. MOHAN RAO & ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 is a legitimate exercise of State legislative competence under Entry 42 and Article 254(2); the State validly enacted a retrospective validating statute that removes the material basis of the High Court's objection to the earlier revival mechanism (Section 105-A), obtained Presidential assent in compliance with Article 254(2), and the retrospective commencement does not invalidate the making of the law; accordingly the 2019 Act is consistent with Article 254 and does not impermissibly nullify the H…

Source excerpt

  • Article 254 repugnancy
  • Retrospective validating legislation
  • Presidential assent
  • Referential legislation
  • Separation of powers
  • Equality (article 14)
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

BEGHAR FOUNDATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR. versus JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ORS.

The Court (majority) dismissed the review petitions, holding that no case for review of the judgment dated 26.09.2018 is made out and that a change in law or a subsequent decision or judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself is not a ground for review; accordingly the review petitions were dismissed. The dissenting opinion held that, because a coordinate Constitution Bench in Rojer Mathew doubted the correctness of the Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) majority's analysis on Article 110 issues and a larger Bench reference was pending, the review petitions should be kept pending until the larg…

Source excerpt

  • Article 110 money bill
  • Certification by speaker
  • Judicial review of speaker's certification
  • Review petition procedure
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SHIVRAJ SINGH CHOUHAN & ORS. versus SPEAKER MADHYA PRADESH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ORS.

The Governor is constitutionally empowered to require a floor test in a running legislative assembly where, on objective and germane material, he forms a prima facie opinion that the Council of Ministers has lost the confidence of the House; such exercise is subject to judicial review for reasonableness and relevance of the material; the Governor did not usurp the Speaker’s exclusive domain over acceptance of resignations or disqualifications, and the pendency of Speaker proceedings is not a bar to convening a floor test; on the facts (22 purported resignations, acceptance of six ministerial…

Source excerpt

  • Power of governor to summon and prorogue
  • Floor test (trust vote)
  • No-confidence motion
  • Resignation of members and acceptance by speaker
  • Tenth schedule (anti-defection)
  • Judicial review of constitutional functionaries
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

ALAGAAPURAM R. MOHANRAJ & OTHERS versus TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY & ANOTHER

Failure to supply or allow viewing of video recording material relied upon by the Privileges Committee denied petitioners reasonable opportunity to meet the case, violating principles of natural justice; impugned Assembly resolution set aside and salary and benefits restored.

Source excerpt

  • Breach of legislative privilege
  • Suspension of members
  • Principles of natural justice
  • Judicial review
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

MOHD. SAEED SIDDIQUI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 is constitutionally valid; its passage as a Money Bill is not open to judicial review, and the extension of the Lokayukta's term to eight years applies to respondent no. 2; he holds office under valid law. The State must proceed to appoint a new Lokayukta as per the Act.

Source excerpt

  • Validity of money bills
  • Judicial review of legislative procedure
  • Appointment and term of lokayukta
  • Legislative privilege
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.