Tomorrow, at 10.30 a.m., Justice G.S.Singhvi will deliver the judgment in Suresh Kumar Kaushal v. Naz Foundation (SLP (c) 15436/2009) at Court No.1. Justice Singhvi also retires from the Supreme Court tomorrow. We have followed the Delhi High Court judgment in the case closely. It will be of interest to know how Justice Singhvi approaches the issue of standing of the petitioners in this case, as the UOI did not appeal against the High Court judgment.
I would be very surprised if the Court overturned the High Court ruling when the Union itself did not defend its law (and when pushed by the court, expressed substantive agreement with the High Court position). But this is the same bench that gave the atrocious judgment in Bhullar — their support for fundamental rights is clearly not to be assumed.
This blog examines whether ‘Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence’ qualifies as a minority institution under Article 30 in light of the Supreme Court’s AMU judgment. Applying the...
Summary: The persistent intrusion of work into personal time not only erodes an individual’s temporal boundaries, but also puts to test the inadequacies of the existing labour safeguards...
Summary: This article examines the discriminatory framework of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which grants maternity leave to adoptive mothers only when the adopted child is below three months of...
Summary: This article examines the discriminatory framework of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which grants maternity leave to adoptive mothers only when the adopted child is below three months of...
What happens when a Constitution promises rights, but the systems built around it keep concentrating power? In this episode, LAOT host Arnav Mathur speaks with constitutional scholar Dr...
In this article, the authors examine whether the Indian Space Research Organisation qualifies as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. They argue that space exploration in India...
I would be very surprised if the Court overturned the High Court ruling when the Union itself did not defend its law (and when pushed by the court, expressed substantive agreement with the High Court position). But this is the same bench that gave the atrocious judgment in Bhullar — their support for fundamental rights is clearly not to be assumed.
This website is following developments closely: http://orinam.net/377/