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

MALKIT SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

The State may remove illegal encroachments lawfully, but when vending zones exist the authorities must actively facilitate and supervise relocation: provide clear, acceptable vending zone information, assist regularisation where appropriate, undertake awareness drives to divert customers, and take steps to minimise disproportionate hardship to vendors; courts will require affidavits and supervisory compliance rather than permit summary eviction without support.

Source excerpt

  • Street vendors
  • Encroachment
  • Vending zones
  • Article 19(1)(g)
  • Article 19(6)
  • Article 21
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
Constitutional law

FEDERATION OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGICAL SOCIETIES OF INDIA (FOGSI) versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Sections 23(1) and 23(2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 are not ultra vires the Constitution. Deficiencies in Form 'F' and record keeping are fundamental violations and not mere clerical mistakes. Search, seizure, and suspension are reasonable restrictions justified by the serious social consequences of female foeticide. No case is made out for striking down or reading down Section 4(3), Sections 23(1), 23(2), or allied provisions. The writ petition is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Constitutional validity
  • Regulation of pre-conception and pre-natal diagnostic techniques
  • Record keeping requirements
  • Reverse burden of proof
  • Search and seizure
  • Suspension and cancellation of registration
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

N. RADHAKRISHNAN @ RADHAKRISHNAN VARENICKAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

The Court held that banning literary works on speculative allegations would choke creativity and violate the constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression; no evidence was advanced to show that the content in 'Meesha' meets the litmus test for restrictions under Article 19(2). The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of speech and expression
  • Reasonable restrictions
  • Creative freedom
  • Literary censorship
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

MAZDOOR KISAN SHAKTI SANGATHAN versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

The right to peaceful protest and demonstration is fundamental but not absolute. The use of Section 144 Cr.P.C. and the NGT order, in so far as they result in blanket or perpetual prohibition, amounts to banning rather than regulating this right, which is impermissible. Authorities must balance the rights of protestors with those of residents, and cannot extinguish one right for the other. Guidelines should be framed to regulate (not ban) peaceful assembly and protest in designated areas, with proper consideration of public interest and the circumstances of each case.

Source excerpt

  • Right to protest
  • Freedom of speech and assembly
  • Section 144 crpc
  • Reasonable restrictions
  • Balancing fundamental rights
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

JAMSHED ANSARI versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS.

Rules 3 and 3A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are regulatory, not prohibitory. They impose reasonable and justified restrictions for the administration of justice and accountability of advocates appearing before the Court, and are not ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. High Courts are empowered to frame such rules, and the right to practice is subject to such conditions as laid down by the Court.

Source excerpt

  • Advocates act
  • Right to practice
  • Reasonable restrictions
  • Court regulation
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

THE SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The two statutes, the Maharashtra State Act and the Central Act, occupy distinct fields and are not in conflict; the Central Act does not occupy the field of labour welfare, and restrictions imposed by the State Act are reasonable. There is no repugnancy between the State Act and Central Act; both Acts apply concurrently.

Source excerpt

  • Repugnancy
  • Reasonable restrictions
  • Labour welfare
  • Private security agencies
Read case analysis
Transport law

M/S. SHARMA TRANSPORTS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Rule 128(9) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prohibits carrying passenger luggage on the roof of tourist vehicles; luggage holds must only be provided at the rear or sides. The restriction is reasonable and directed towards passenger safety, not violative of Article 19(1)(g).

Source excerpt

  • Motor vehicles
  • Tourist vehicle regulation
  • Reasonable restrictions
  • Interpretation of statutes
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

GAINDA RAM AND OTHERS versus M.C.D. AND OTHERS

Schemes and policies issued by NDMC and MCD do not amount to law as required under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Hawking and street vending constitute a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), but restrictions can only be imposed by law, not by ad hoc schemes. The Court directs the appropriate government to enact legislation regulating hawking by 30th June 2011. Till then, existing schemes will govern hawking and vending, with grievance redressal through internal mechanisms.

Source excerpt

  • Fundamental rights
  • Hawking regulation
  • Street vending
  • Reasonable restrictions
  • Scheme regulation
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

V SUBRAMANIAM versus RAJESH RAGHUVANDRA RAO

Sub-section (2A) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, as introduced by Maharashtra Act No. 29 of 1984, is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A, being arbitrary, unreasonable, and of excessive nature. The provision deprives partners of the right to dissolve unregistered firms or recover their share, going beyond what is in public interest and not protecting third parties as intended.

Source excerpt

  • Constitutional validity of statutory amendment
  • Partnership law
  • Right to property
  • Reasonable restrictions
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.