- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) filed a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court of India to represent the rights of the transgender community. NALSA highlighted that transgender persons, despite being a part of Indian society for centuries, have been continuously discriminated against and excluded from social and legal recognition. The petition emphasized that transgender people face severe marginalization in key areas such as education, jobs, healthcare, and housing. This lack of recognition and support has caused significant hardship....
Read MoreIn this case, the petitioner, Joginder Kumar, was called to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ghaziabad (Respondent No. 4) on January 7, 1994, for questioning in connection with a certain case. Joginder appeared at the SSP's office around 10:00 AM, accompanied by his four brothers. However, once he arrived, the SSP kept him in custody. When his brothers later asked about his whereabouts, they were told that Joginder would be released the same evening after the....
Read MoreIn the case of R v Foster, a witness saw a vehicle driving at high speed in the direction of the victim but did not actually see the moment of the accident. After the accident occurred, the victim who was visibly in shock spoke to the witness and described what had happened. Issue Before the Court The main legal issue in this case was whether the victim’s statement, made shortly after the accident while still in a state of shock,....
Read MoreIn 1999, Murli S. Deora, a well-known Indian human rights activist, filed a civil writ petition before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution. It was a public interest litigation (PIL) aimed at banning smoking in public places. The main argument made by the petitioner was that smoking in public seriously harmed public health and violated the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Murli S. Deora highlighted that non-smokers....
Read MoreThe case of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka arose when objections were raised against the use of certain neuro-scientific investigation techniques during criminal investigations. In this case, some techniques were being used without the consent of the accused persons, suspects, or even witnesses. The main issue was whether forcing someone to undergo these tests without their permission violated their fundamental rights. The techniques in questions were- “Narcoanalysis Polygraph tests (lie detector tests), Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP)” Issue before the....
Read MoreThe respondent company owned a large area of land in Calcutta. It planned to develop this land for housing and divided it into smaller plots for sale. To do this, it signed agreements with various buyers, collecting small deposits as earnest money. However, in late 1941, during World War II, the Government took over a big portion of this land for military use under the Defence of India Rules. The company said it could no longer complete the agreements and....
Read MoreRatlam, a princely state that eventually joined the Indian Union, was governed by Sajjan Singh. Sajjan Singh and the Indian government entered into a contract in 1949 that gave him a number of rights and privileges, including the ability to receive a yearly privy purse. The Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, which was passed in 1954, removed the rulers of the former princely states' privy privileges and privy funds. In the Supreme Court, Sajjan Singh contested the legality of the 26th....
Read MoreThe claimant, Hadley, owned a mill featuring a broken crankshaft. The claimant engaged Baxendale, the defendant, to transport the crankshaft to the location at which it would be repaired and then subsequently transport it back. The defendant then made an error causing the crankshaft to be returned to the claimant a week later than agreed, during which time the claimant’s mill was out of operation. The claimant contended that the defendant had displayed professional negligence and attempted to claim for....
Read MoreThe Plaintiff had taken a shop on rent from the Defendant. Later, both parties entered into a sale agreement where the Plaintiff agreed to buy the same shop. At the time of the agreement, the Plaintiff paid part of the purchase amount and promised to pay the remaining balance when the official sale deed would be signed. However, after six months, the Defendant sold the shop to another person (a third party) for ₹20,000. In response, the Plaintiff filed a....
Read MoreIn R.K. Dalmia vs. Delhi Administration (1962), R.K. Dalmia, a prominent businessman, was accused of publishing controversial and sharply critical articles in The Hindustan Times. These articles were said to contain disrespectful language against the government and allegations that were considered potentially harmful to public order and national security. As a result, Dalmia was charged by the Delhi Administration under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code for promoting enmity between different groups, and under Section 124A for sedition. The....
Read More
