- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
Introduction: The Supreme Court ruled that government employees cannot claim promotions as a right. The Court upheld the Gujarat High Court's promotion policy for Senior Civil Judges to District Judges based on the merit-cum-seniority principle. It also emphasized limited judicial intervention in promotion matters, except when equality principles are violated. Facts: The petitioners challenged the Gujarat High Court's Select List for promotions of Senior Civil Judges to District Judges, arguing it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners contested....
Read MoreBench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. Introduction: The Supreme Court ruled that an arrest found to be illegal mandates the release of the accused on bail. The Court rejected the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) appeal, emphasizing that failure to present the accused before a magistrate within 24 hours violates constitutional rights. The decision underscored the duty of courts to uphold fundamental rights in such cases. Facts: Subhash Sharma was detained by the Immigration Bureau at IGI Airport, Delhi, on....
Read MoreA human rights activist, advocating for the public good, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The case was based on a news report titled "Law helps the injured to die" published in the Hindustan Times. According to the report, a man on a scooter was hit by a speeding car and was severely injured. A passerby, seeing the victim bleeding heavily, rushed him to the nearest hospital. However, the doctors at that hospital refused to treat....
Read MoreBench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction: In a positive development for out-of-court settlements, the Supreme Court recently lauded the amicable resolution of a trademark dispute between Murlidhar Gyanchandani and the State of Jharkhand, highlighting the benefits of resolving disputes without prolonged litigation. Facts: The dispute between the appellants (Murlidhar Gyanchandani and others) and the respondent centered on the infringement of the trademark “Ghadi.” They filed a civil suit alleging trademark infringement by the respondent. In response to the....
Read MoreThe case revolved around the composition of an arbitral tribunal. The Appellant argued that Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was a mandatory provision that could not be ignored. According to sub-section (1) of Section 10, parties could decide the number of arbitrators, but the total number could not be even. Sub-section (2) further stated that if the parties did not specify the number of arbitrators, the tribunal would automatically consist of a sole arbitrator. The Appellant....
Read MoreThis case revolves around the petitioner’s challenge to the government’s decision to impound her passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, citing "public interest" as the reason. The petitioner was informed by the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, to surrender her passport but was denied access to the reasons behind the government's decision. Dissatisfied with the government's refusal to disclose the reasons, she filed a petition questioning both the legality of the impounding action and the refusal to provide....
Read MoreBench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction The Supreme Court clarified the evidentiary value of disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Now section 23 of BSA), stating that such statements, without supporting evidence, cannot solely be relied upon for convicting an accused. The Court acquitted the appellant, who was convicted for murder, after examining the inadequacy of the prosecution's evidence. Facts of the Case The appellant, Vinobhai, allegedly stabbed the deceased, Ramakrishnan,....
Read MoreIntroduction: The case deals with the issue of adverse possession and the rights of citizens over their property via the State. The Court clarified that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens, reinforcing the importance of respecting private property rights in a democratic system governed by the rule of law. Facts: Amin Lal and Ashok Kumar filed a civil suit in 1981, claiming ownership of 18 Biswas Pukhta land near National Highway 10, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, alleging unauthorized....
Read MoreThis case involves a legal dispute concerning the competence of a person of unsound mind to enter into a contract. The issue centers around whether insanity or mental incompetence can be used as a defense to void a contract. The case arose from a property transaction where the title of a disputed property was sold by the son, who was alleged to be mentally incapacitated, to a landowner at a significantly lower price than its actual value. The mother of....
Read MoreFacts of the case A seven-judge bench was set up to decide whether Parliament and State Legislatures could take away the power of judicial review from the High Courts and Supreme Court. This issue involved Article 226 (with Article 227) and Article 32, which give courts this power, against Article 323A(1) and Article 323B(2), which allow the legislature to limit it. The bench also had to reconsider an earlier ruling in S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987),....
Read More
