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 procedure

MAMMAN KHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA

The segregation order was quashed because it was based solely on the appellant's status as a sitting MLA, not on any legally recognized ground (distinct transaction, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice), the prosecution's case relied on common interlinked evidence, the order was passed suo motu without notice violating procedural fairness under Article 21 and equality under Article 14, and the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the police to file a separate charge-sheet; therefore a joint trial must be conducted and the impugned orders set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Joint trials
  • Segregation of trial
  • Separate charge sheet
  • Right to fair trial
  • Equality before law
  • Priority trials for legislators
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ETC. versus BGP PRODUCTS OPERATIONS GMBH AND HAGENE IMMERMATT WEG. & ANR. ETC.

Matter involves substantial questions of law with far-reaching implications for public health and regulatory powers. Decision on executive or legislative nature of Section 26A will impact legality of the impugned notification restricting manufacture of Oxytocin for domestic use to only public sector entities. The case requires authoritative determination on constitutional and statutory grounds and is referred to a larger Bench.

Source excerpt

  • State monopoly
  • Essential medicines
  • Executive vs legislative powers
  • Regulatory notification challenge
  • Equality before law
  • Public health
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Several challenged provisions and conditions of the Act and Rules are arbitrary, unreasonable, and infringe fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21. Prohibitions and conditions lacking rational nexus to the stated objectives or which virtually prohibit constitutionally protected activity cannot be upheld. Certain other regulatory aspects, such as prohibition of showering money or requirement for written contracts, are reasonable and constitutionally permissible.

Source excerpt

  • Obscenity
  • Regulation of dance bars
  • Equality before law
  • Right to profession
  • Protection of working women
  • Reasonableness of statutory restrictions
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

JOSEPH SHINE versus UNION OF INDIA

Section 497 IPC and Section 198 Cr.P.C., being violative of Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 21 (personal liberty and dignity) of the Constitution, are unconstitutional and must be struck down. Section 497 is arbitrary, discriminatory, based on gender stereotypes, and invades privacy; criminalization of adultery does not serve a legitimate public interest.

Source excerpt

  • Adultery
  • Equality before law
  • Right to privacy
  • Gender discrimination
  • Personal liberty
  • Protective discrimination
Read case analysis
Service law

DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF & ORS. versus JANARDAN SINGH & ORS.

The denial of Special (Duty) Allowance to CRPF personnel posted in North Eastern Region, solely on the basis that their headquarters were outside that region, is unconstitutional. Classification under the 1987 Government Order fails the test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. The 2005 Office Memorandum is clarificatory and extends the benefit to all posted in North Eastern Region irrespective of headquarters. Respondents are entitled to allowance for entire period of actual posting in North Eastern Region.

Source excerpt

  • Allowances
  • Special (duty) allowance
  • Equality before law
  • Reasonable classification under article 14
  • Service benefits
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SECRETARY MAHATAMA GANDHI MISSION & ANOTHER versus BHARTIYA KAMGAR SENA & OTHERS

Exclusion of non-teaching employees of unaided educational institutions from revised pay scales, when extended to aided institutions, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as the classification lacks rational nexus with the object of periodic pay revision. The Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 12.8.2009 confers a legal right to revised pay scales for all teaching staff of affiliated colleges irrespective of aid status, and the artificial distinction in the 2009 Rules must be disregarded. The appeals are dismissed and non-teaching employees of unaided affiliated colleges are en…

Source excerpt

  • Pay revision in educational institutions
  • Equality before law
  • Reasonable classification
  • Subordinate legislation
  • Right to salary
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

The Orissa and Bihar Special Courts Acts, including provisions for establishment of courts and confiscation, are constitutionally valid as they do not violate Articles 14, 20, 21, or require more than presidential assent under Article 199. Classification for holders of high public or political office is reasonable. However, Rule 12 prescribing summary procedure in Bihar Special Courts Rules, 2010 is ultra vires.

Source excerpt

  • Constitutionality of special courts acts
  • Confiscation of property
  • Procedural validity
  • Equality before law
  • Double jeopardy
  • President's assent under article 199
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

S. T. SADIQ versus STATE OF KERALA& ORS.

Section 6 of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1995 is unconstitutional as it directly seeks to nullify final Supreme Court judgments and discriminates between 10 and 36 cashew factories, violating Article 14, since all 46 factories were similarly situated and equally treated by the State's common notices.

Source excerpt

  • Legislative power
  • Judicial power
  • Constitutionality of statutes
  • Equality before law
  • Acquisition of property
Read case analysis
Service law

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ETC. versus RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) ETC.

Recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees without their fault is impermissible in law when such recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary, especially for Class III/IV employees, retirees, those about to retire within one year, when excess payments persisted over five years, or when employee was made to work at a higher post. Impugned High Court orders quashing recovery stand upheld in view of these principles.

Source excerpt

  • Recovery of excess payments
  • Equality before law
  • Government employment
  • Doctrine of equity
  • Service benefits
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.