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.
Summary: In Murti Devi & Anr. v Balkar Singh, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court denied maintenance to a woman in a live-in relationship after considering her male-partner’s conviction for...
Summary: This article analyses a recent High Court order quashing a rape complaint and imposing punitive directions against the complainant. It examines how the Court departs from settled limits on...
Summary: In this article, the author critically examines the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on state obligations concerning climate change, unpacking its doctrinal...
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...
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/