CASE ANALYSIS OF B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA
On the suggestion of the Council of Ministers, the President of India removed the Governors of Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh on July 2, 2004. As a result, a writ petition in the form of a Public Interest Litigation was filed, requesting the reinstatement of the abovementioned Governors of the States. A Governor of a State is appointed by the President of India and serves 'during the pleasure of the President,' according to Articles 155 and 156 of The Constitution of India, 1949. In most cases, a Governor can stay in office for a maximum of five years. However, Article 74 requires the President to act on the advice of the Council and the facts that led to the Governors' removal. Second, a Writ of Certiorari was filed, demanding the quashing of the same order, as well as a Writ of Mandamus, requesting the removal of Ministers, allowing the Governor to continue in office in accordance with the wishes of the Central Government in power. In the current case, the petitioner first demanded the production of papers and then that the four Governors be permitted to serve out the remainder of their five-year terms. This case was heard by a four-judge constitutional bench of India's Supreme Court.
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal: Right to Information and Judicial Independence
The citizen’s Right to Know is one of the significant ingredients of a democratic country. India demands transparent and accountable government to establish open and good governance. The sovereignty of India lies with ‘the people of India’. We choose our own representative therefore; it is our right to know about the machinery of the country. The need to control the mal administration of the government is important. Right to Information Act was formulated in 2005 which comes within the ambit of Article 19(1)(A) of the Constitution of India which ensures the fundamental right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Many landmark judgments elaborated and clarified the concept of open governance. In the modern era, people are more vigil about their rights and they constitute the democracy. So, they expect the government to deliver. Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019, it was held by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court that Supreme Court comes under the scope of “public authority”. Therefore, it is covered under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). It is one of the landmark judgments which took a limelight in recent years.
Biological Age cannot be inclusive of Mental Age
The judiciary is racing towards the liberal interpretation from the strict interpretation of the laws, statutes, and provisions and so on.
The curious case of Enola Holmes
Intellectual Property Rights is the cornerstone of development and enhancement of contemporary literature, performing arts and technology.
Case analysis of Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon judgment)
The Cassis de Dijon Judgement is a landmark judgement on the concept of free movement of goods.
Case Analysis of El Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The ECtHR, in 2012, held that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had violated Articles 3, 5, 8 as well as 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)...
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
The Indian legislation provides for a various number of laws, but there may come a time when there might occur conflict between the legislations.
Daughter's Right To Ancestral Property: What You Need to Know
In a landmark judgment, recorded on, August 11th, 2020, the Supreme Court expanded on the rights of Hindu women as legal heirs to ancestral property.
IS IT ALLOWED TO HAVE A SECOND BITE AT THE CHERRY?
In the above-mentioned case, the judgment was pronounced in the Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Ms Justice Jyoti Singh.
Reservation for Promotion: Is the State Bound to Provide It?
After independence, the rights of a minority was continued to be safeguarded, but significant changes happened in 1979 with the Mandal Commission Report which called for a change to admissions to institutes of higher education, except where states already had more generous requirements.
NO PRE-ADMISSION ENQUIRY BY ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY REGARDING PROOF OF DEFAULT
The Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (