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

JAIDEEP BOSE versus M/S BID AND HAMMER AUCTIONEERS PRIVATE LIMITED

Summons and criminal proceedings against the appellants were quashed because the complaint contained only broad or general allegations (particularly as to the editorial director) without specific averments showing control over selection of content, and the Magistrate failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing process against persons residing outside its jurisdiction; further, there was no material showing actual damage or intent to defame that would justify continuing the proceedings at this stage.

Source excerpt

  • Criminal defamation
  • Section 202 cr.p.c.
  • Press and registration of books act, 1867
  • Editorial liability
  • Freedom of speech and expression
Read case analysis
Cinematograph act, 1952

NIPUN MALHOTRA versus SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

The Court declined to interfere with the CBFC's certification of the film and refused to order beeping of parts or to compel the private respondent to produce an awareness film under Section 7(d) of the RPwD Act. It held that courts must be slow to override expert certification bodies, that the Cinematograph Act and its Rules (including the 2024 Rules) adequately provide for consultation with experts, and that compelled speech of the nature sought would be inappropriate. The Court set out a framework for dignified, non-disparaging portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media consist…

Source excerpt

  • Film certification
  • Portrayal of persons with disabilities
  • Freedom of speech and expression
  • Reasonable restrictions
  • Disabling humour vs disability humour
  • Expert consultation for certification
Read case analysis
Defamation

BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. versus ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED

The Supreme Court set aside the trial Court's ex-parte ad-interim injunction and the Single Judge of the High Court's order because neither court applied its mind to the facts in assessing the three-fold test (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) nor provided reasoned analysis; such unreasoned ex-parte injunctions in defamation matters risk unjustified prior restraint of journalistic expression and must be granted only in exceptional circumstances after proper evaluation or hearing.

Source excerpt

  • Interim injunctions
  • Ex-parte injunctions
  • Three-fold test (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm)
  • Bonnard standard
  • Slapp suits
  • Freedom of speech vs. reputation and privacy
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

While recognising the legitimate public interest in media reporting, disclosures by police during ongoing investigations must be regulated to protect rights of accused and victims and to prevent media trials; accordingly the Union Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to prepare comprehensive guidelines/SOP on media briefings by police personnel, after consulting Directors General of Police, media organisations and the National Human Rights Commission, within the stipulated period.

Source excerpt

  • Police media briefings
  • Pre-trial publicity
  • Fair trial
  • Presumption of innocence
  • Guidelines for police communication
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The appeals are allowed: the MIB order dated 31 January 2022 denying renewal and the High Court judgment dated 2 March 2022 are set aside because the procedure followed (non-disclosure of reasons, reliance on sealed-cover material disclosed only to the court, and issuance of a non-reasoned order) violated the appellants' right to a fair hearing under Articles 14 and 21; national security does not permit absolute abrogation of natural justice and the State failed to prove a sufficient nexus between the material and any legitimate national security purpose; public interest immunity and other le…

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of speech and expression
  • Freedom of press
  • Natural justice
  • Sealed cover procedure
  • Public interest immunity
  • Proportionality
Read case analysis
Criminal law

AROON PURIE versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that nothing specific in the complaint attributed liability to A-1 (Editor-in-Chief), so he could not be held liable for the acts of the article's author; public servants' acts in reporting or informing superiors were protected under the law (including Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC as explained in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande), and accordingly the summoning order and Complaint No.584/1/2010 were set aside and quashed insofar as A-1 and public servants A-3, A-4 and A-8 were concerned; however, the appeal by A-2 (the author) was rejected and he must face trial on the all…

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of criminal complaint
  • Section 482 cr.p.c.
  • Defamation (sections 499,500 ipc)
  • Liability of editors
  • Protection for public servants' reports
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

NAVIKA KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

On the ground of parity with co-accused and to avoid multiple investigating agencies for FIRs/complaints arising out of the same incident (the Newshour Debate telecast on 26.05.2022), all relevant FIRs/complaints against the petitioner are to be transferred to the IFSO unit of Delhi Police, two specified FIRs are to be treated as lead cases and investigated together, the IFSO unit may collect information from State agencies, coercive action against the petitioner is stayed for eight weeks to enable challenge in the appropriate High Court, and the petitioner is at liberty to seek quashing unde…

Source excerpt

  • Transfer of firs
  • Quashing of firs
  • Stay of coercive action
  • Clubbing of firs
  • Investigation by ifso unit
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

VINOD DUA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Applying Kedar Nath Singh, the Court found the statements in the talk show were critical appraisal and expressions of disapprobation aimed at addressing COVID-19 related problems and did not show intent or tendency to incite violence or public disorder; therefore offences alleged under ss.124A and 505(1)(b) IPC, as well as s.501 and s.268 IPC and the prosecuted provisions of the Disaster Management Act and s.188 IPC, were not made out and the FIR was quashed; however the Court refused the prayer to constitutionally mandate a pre-clearance committee for senior journalists as such a direction w…

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of fir
  • Sedition (section 124a ipc)
  • Freedom of speech and expression (article 19(1)(a))
  • Press protections and pre-investigation safeguards
  • Preliminary inquiry before fir
  • Separation of powers
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA versus M.R VIJAYABHASKAR & ORS.

Oral observations made in the course of a hearing that are not part of the official judicial record cannot be expunged and do not justify restraining the media from reporting court proceedings; the media has a constitutional freedom to report judicial proceedings subject to Article 19(2) limitations; judges must exercise caution and propriety in oral remarks, and superior courts must balance judicial independence with accountability.

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of speech and expression
  • Open courts
  • Media reporting of judicial proceedings
  • Judicial accountability
  • Judicial restraint and propriety
  • Role and oversight of election commission
Read case analysis
Criminal law

MS. X versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

The Court held that the petitioner is a rape victim and must be treated accordingly: the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is directed to ensure free education for the petitioner's minor children until they attain 14 years of age and to consider the petitioner's case for allotment of housing under Prime Minister Awas Yojna or other Schemes; the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi and competent authorities shall review police security for the petitioner from time to time; the District Legal Services Authority, Ranchi shall render legal services to the petitioner as may be fit; the Court noted th…

Source excerpt

  • Rape
  • Rehabilitation of rape victims
  • Victim compensation
  • Disclosure of identity of rape victims (s.228-a ipc)
  • Police protection for victims
  • Free education for minor children
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.