ALEC - Aashayein Law Education Center|Law Coaching in Bhopal

30 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 10044/2010)

Facts 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....

24 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India, 2011 (8) SCC 161

This 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....

23 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, AIR 2002 SC 177

The 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....

21 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

M/s Modi Cements Limited v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (AIR 1998 SC 1057)

Facts 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....

20 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (AIR 1984 SC 802)

Facts: The petitioner, an organization dedicated to freeing bonded laborers, surveyed stone quarries in the Faridabad District near Delhi. The survey revealed that many workers, originally from Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan, were enduring extremely harsh working conditions, with several of them being bonded laborers. Deeply concerned, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Supreme Court, bringing these issues to its attention, and filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The PIL claimed that hundreds of workers were trapped....

19 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350

FACTS IN BRIEF During India's economic reforms, the Public Sector Disinvestment Commission recommended privatizing the government-owned company BALCO. Initially, the plan was to sell 40% of its shares immediately and reduce the government’s ownership to 26% within two years, with the long-term goal of complete disinvestment. However, the proposal was later revised to include the transfer of 51% of the government’s ownership along with management control. This revised plan was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment. Following this decision,....

18 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3021

The petition, filed as a public interest litigation by Advocate Gaurav Jain, sought the court's intervention to address the rights and rehabilitation of prostitutes in India. The petitioner sought a declaration affirming several fundamental rights for prostitutes, including freedom, protection from re-entrapment, and socio-economic empowerment to ensure equality, dignity, and social integration. Issues raised 1. Rights of Prostitutes: The petitioner emphasized the need to recognize prostitutes as free citizens with the right to dignity, economic empowerment, social justice, and self-reliance.....

16 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45

Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution provides a citizen with the right to strike. The basic understanding of a strike is that it is a collective stoppage of work by employees aimed at pressuring management to address their demands or concerns. The scenario of the right to strike changes when the case is related to advocates. An advocate is considered an officer of the court and thus, his right to strike is dealt with differently as compared to other people.....

14 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, 1995 AIR 1531

The Sarla Mudgal case (“Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.”) is a key landmark decision in Indian family law. This case addressed critical issues like apostasy i.e changing one’s religion, and bigamy under “section 494 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC)”, offering clarity on what makes a marriage “void” under Section 494 of IPC. It also played an important role in discussions about the need for a Uniform Civil Code in India. Facts....

10 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Mr. X v. Hospital Z, AIR 1999 SC 495

The Supreme Court of India's landmark decision in “Mr. X v. Hospital Z” (1998) deals with the balance between an individual’s “right to privacy” and society’s “need to protect public health”. The case raised key questions about medical confidentiality, the limits of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the ethical responsibilities of healthcare organizations. This judgment has played a vital role in shaping the legal understanding of fundamental rights in sensitive health-related situations. I. Facts The patient, who....