The Delhi High Court’s landmark decision prioritizing forest restoration over illegal constructions in Sanjay Van reflects a commitment to environmental preservation amid escalating pollution. Acting Chief Justice Manmohan emphasized the importance of preserving green spaces and public health over unauthorized religious structures, setting a crucial precedent for future environmental protection cases.
The Supreme Court is examining a plea filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy to remove “Socialist” and “Secular” from the Indian Constitution’s Preamble. This raises questions about amending the Preamble without changing its original adoption date. The case delves into legal and ideological aspects and may redefine the Constitution’s interpretative boundaries.
Sayantan Mukhopadhyay files a PIL in Calcutta High Court, seeking accountability from the Central Minister for Animal Welfare over inadequate treatment concerns. The case involves allegations of improper treatment at veterinary hospitals, leading to the untimely demise of a pet. The court is investigating and pushing for regulations to govern private veterinary hospitals.
The Bombay High Court criticized the unpreparedness of the petition challenging the issuance of ‘Kunbi’ caste certificates to the ‘Maratha’ community. The court questioned the inclusion of the Maharashtra Advocate General in the petition and emphasized the need for thorough preparation in legal petitions, adjourning the hearing to February 20. The case highlights complexities in caste certification and socio-political issues.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to consider a petition that demanded “mandatory registration” for devotees planning to visit Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. “Do you have such confidence that your petition will be rejected?” Justice Kant inquired. The Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider a plea for the “compulsory registration” of pilgrims visiting the Sabarimala […]
The Gujarat High Court imposed a Rs.7 lakh cost on a petitioner for neglecting a public interest litigation (PIL) for seven years. The decision emphasizes the court’s view on the seriousness and accountability required in PILs. The reduction in penalty considered the time elapsed since the filing. This move aims to discourage casual PIL filing and uphold the responsibility associated with it.
The Supreme Court declined to consider a PIL for enforcing a post-matric scholarship program for scheduled caste students in Bihar, citing the government’s discretion in fund allocation. The decision underscores the judiciary’s respect for state autonomy and the challenge of intervening in fiscal and state-level policies while acknowledging the support for marginalized students.
Madras High Court’s Chief Justice Gangapurwala swiftly disposes of 73.6% of PILs since May 2023 through a strict screening process for petitioners. In a remarkable demonstration of judicial efficiency, Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala of the Madras High Court has made significant strides in addressing Public Interest Litigations (PILs). Over a span of just eight months, […]
The Supreme Court of India rebuked Advocate Prashant Bhushan for presenting a personal interest case as a public interest litigation. The case, filed by K.M. Cherian regarding loan repayment for medical research organizations, highlighted the need to distinguish personal and public interests in legal proceedings. The court’s stance reinforces the integrity of public interest litigations.
The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a national policy for community kitchens to address hunger. The case emphasizes the urgent need for a comprehensive scheme as India grapples with alarming statistics on starvation-related deaths, highlighting the complexities of formulating policies to ensure food security.