- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
In this case, child labourers in the construction sector of Delhi filed a complaint, claiming that Article 24 of the constitution which prohibits assigning children under the age of 14 to hazardous jobs had been violated. Additionally, representatives of construction companies employed workers from impoverished areas in Orissa, Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan to work on the stadiums and infrastructure, including as flyovers and hotels, on the ASIAD-82 sites. Facts of the Case During the ASIAD-82....
Read MoreIn the case of MK Ranjitsinh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court acknowledged freedom from the harmful effects of climate change as a distinct fundamental right. This decision expanded the scope of Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that overhead power lines in Gujarat and Rajasthan's arid regions posed a grave threat to the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB).....
Read MoreBENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE "ARIJIT PASAYAT" & JUSTICE S.H KAPADIA INTRODUCTION - The process of granting a pardon in India begins with the submission of a mercy petition to the President under Article 72 of the Constitution. The petition is initially reviewed by the Home Ministry, which consults with the relevant state government. Following the Home Minister's recommendations, the petition is forwarded to the President for consideration. The authority to grant pardons is an integral part of the constitutional framework. Article....
Read MoreThe landmark case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India underscores the fundamental right of the right to freedom of speech and expression in a democratic society. In August 2019, the government imposed restrictions on communication networks, including internet and mobile services, in Jammu and Kashmir. This case represents a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional law, as the Supreme Court reaffirmed the essential role of constitutional rights and clarified the limits of governmental authority in restricting fundamental freedoms. Facts The....
Read MoreGiven federalism and the balance of power between the Union and State governments, this case is significant in Indian constitutional law because it discusses the extent and bounds of the President's authority under Article 356. Following the general elections in 1977, it investigates the constitutionality of the Central Government's orders to dissolve state legislatures and the subjectivity of the President's satisfaction under Article 356 to judicial scrutiny. Although the President's pleasure is subjective and often not susceptible to judicial review,....
Read MoreToday, every Indian citizen has a right to basic education, which is necessary for a decent life, due to the right to education, under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This clause arose from the need to expound the right to life by giving it a meaning which includes education as a means of effectively realizing the other rights. In the leading case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, where the Supreme Court of India has given much importance....
Read MoreFacts of the case This case involves three appeals stemming from Right to Information (RTI) applications filed by the respondent, Subhash Chandra Agarwal, with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court of India. These RTI applications sought: First Application: Information on communications between the Chief Justice of India and the Union Minister, alleging undue influence over judicial decisions. Second Application: Correspondence related to the appointments of Justices H.L. Dutta, A.K. Ganguly, and R.M. Lodha, who were elevated....
Read MoreThis case stands as a significant milestone in environmental law, marking the first introduction of the Polluter Pay Principle (PPP). Also referred to as the principle of extended producer responsibility, PPP is a legal concept that holds polluters accountable for the costs associated with managing and mitigating environmental harm. Under this principle, individuals or entities responsible for causing pollution are required to bear the expenses necessary to address and prevent adverse impacts on human health and the environment. Fact In....
Read MoreThe case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra is a landmark case to analyze the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It began when Mrs. Rupa Ashok Hurra was dissatisfied with a decision of Apex Court and under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution sought a review of the judgment. But her petition was dismissed. Peculiarly, during the dismissal, the bench identified several important constitutional questions and sent them to a larger constitutional bench. These issues centered on whether the....
Read MoreFacts The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondent for failing to fulfil a financial obligation. The respondent had issued three cheques to partially settle the debt arising from the purchase of cement from the appellant. However, these cheques were returned by the bank with the remark “payment stopped by the drawer.” The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether a cheque returned due to a “stop payment” order would....
Read More
