Constitution · India · PART III — Fundamental Rights

Article 32 Constitution Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

The Constitution of India · Edition: Supplied Law Library page: pocket edition attributed to Legislative Department, as on 10 September 2026; imported 6 November 2026

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Comments

Criminal LawOnce the President or Governor has exercised clemency under Article 72 or 161, the Court cannot sit in appeal under Article 32 to modify it further. These powers are distinct from Section 432 CrPC, and review is confined to grounds such as failure to apply the mind, bad faith, irrelevant considerations, ignoring relevant material or gross arbitrariness. — Ramasrey @ Fakkad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 764.

Criminal LawAn Article 32 petition seeking to quash or club cyber-fraud FIRs across States is maintainable but extraordinary; ordinarily the High Court must be approached first unless there is a palpable breach of fundamental rights or exceptional urgency. — Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 INSC 740.

Constitutional LawContinuing mandamus is a tool for enforcing an already declared right in the face of official inertia, not a freestanding remedy. Keeping matters pending for possible future defaults would assume executive failure, offend institutional comity and turn the Court into a micro-manager of executive work. Nor should Article 32 be used routinely to bypass the remedies the CrPC and BNSS provide. — Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 432.

Administrative LawThe State holds public resources in trust, so contracts must be awarded transparently and without undisclosed conflicts. On allegations, supported by a CAG report, of works given without tender to relatives of the Chief Minister and officials, the Court noted that Article 32 power to transfer investigation to the CBI is exceptional but justified where high functionaries are involved or the State inquiry lacks credibility. — Save Mon Region Federation v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2026 INSC 320.

Religious FreedomDeclaring public holidays is a policy matter for the executive. Lack of a uniform holiday policy is not discrimination, Article 25 gives no right to a national holiday for a religious occasion, and the Court declined to make the Prakash Parv of Guru Gobind Singh a national gazetted holiday, observing that his teachings are best honoured through work. — All India Shiromani Singh Sabha v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 289.

Criminal LawAfter the Barabanki Bar resolved not to defend the accused and attacked an advocate’s office, the Court found two months’ denial of bail in a minor toll plaza scuffle violated Article 21, released them under Article 32 and transferred the case to Tis Hazari, Delhi. — Vishvjeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 254.

Property LawArticle 32 is a fundamental right but still subject to principles such as laches. A claim for compensation for land taken in 1954-55 was stale; the test is unexplained, not merely long, delay. — Mizo Chief Council Mizoram v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 236.

Service LawIncluding on a selection committee an officer whom the candidate had named as a contemnor in the same dispute created a reasonable apprehension of bias, vitiating the rejection whether or not bias was proved. A fresh committee without him was ordered within four weeks, with Rs. 5 lakh costs for deliberate obstruction. — Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 101.

Consumer LawA PIL must rest on credible, researched material. Newspaper reports of scattered food contamination incidents do not establish systemic failure warranting a national task force or audit. — Dr. K.A. Paul v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2026.

Environmental LawAn SIT had found no breach of CITES or domestic law in animal imports by a private facility. Imports made under valid permits cannot later be treated as illegal because of objections, and disturbing the animals’ care could itself be cruel. — Karanartham Viramah Foundation v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2026.

Criminal LawThe Supreme Court does not supervise High Court administration, but may step in in rare cases where continued inaction infringes Articles 14 and 21, such as failure to decide revisions on withdrawal of prosecution in line with its directions. — Jaideep Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., Supreme Court, 2026.

Criminal LawArticle 32 lies at the core of the Constitution, and a petition showing a prima facie breach will be heard. Registering FIR after FIR to keep a person in custody despite bail in earlier cases was a conscious abuse violating personal liberty. — Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Supreme Court, 2026.

Labour LawThe Court cannot direct the legislature to enact a minimum wage law for domestic workers, given separation of powers, but urged States to address their exploitation and evolve mechanisms for fair wages. — Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2026.

Service LawCivil Judges selected for the Delhi Judicial Service cannot be refused release merely because their leaving would create vacancies; their career interest prevails over the parent High Court’s administrative concerns. They were to be relieved in time, with seniority kept at their place in the select list despite delay from the litigation. — Anubhuti Goel v. High Court of Uttarakhand, Supreme Court, 2026.

Criminal LawAlthough the Court ordinarily relegates parties to the High Court, Article 32 is itself a fundamental right, and it may quash FIRs where liberty is flagrantly threatened, even after a charge sheet. A second FIR on the same offence or composite transaction is not maintainable; later versions belong to the first FIR. — Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 1249.

Criminal LawConstitutional courts should order a CBI investigation under Articles 32 and 226 only sparingly and in exceptional cases, not routinely or merely because the local police are accused. It is warranted to restore credibility, where there are national or international ramifications, or to do complete justice and enforce fundamental rights. — Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. P.H. Dinesh, 2025 INSC 1224.

Criminal LawArticle 32 remains open to a death-row convict even after appeal, review and mercy petitions fail, because the punishment is irreversible. The Manoj guidelines requiring psychiatric, psychological and social-history material on mitigation are indispensable, and a death sentence imposed without them violates Articles 14 and 21; they apply retrospectively. The conviction stood but sentencing was reopened, though such petitions will be entertained only for clear breaches of new safeguards. — Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 1043.

Constitutional LawA Judge’s challenge to the in-house mechanism and the committee’s report against him was not entertained. He had let the evidence be uploaded and taken part in the inquiry without protest, objecting only after the report, and that conduct did not merit the Court’s discretion. — XXX v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 943.

Constitutional LawAn Article 32 petition lies only for an actual or threatened breach of a fundamental right; it does not ordinarily lie against a judicial order, and legislative competence will not be examined where no fundamental right is infringed. — Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 884.

Human RightsOn a PIL alleging 171 fake police encounters in Assam, the Court declined blanket directions but asked the Assam Human Rights Commission to hold an independent, prompt inquiry with victims’ participation and confidentiality, with legal aid from the State Legal Services Authority. Proven fake encounters violate Article 21; the PUCL guidelines require investigation of the incident, not necessarily of the officers. — Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder v. State of Assam, 2025 INSC 785; (2025) 8 SCC 804.

Administrative LawA direction to recognise Kakiho village in Nagaland was set aside because the criteria in the State memoranda were not met and objections were not considered. A fresh public notice and full review of objections within six months was ordered; the Kohima-Dimapur boundary dispute did not concern the village. — Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village, 2025 INSC 766.

Constitutional LawEvery organ of the State works within limits set by the Constitution, which is above all of them. The power of judicial review itself comes from the Constitution, and in exercising it courts decide by law, not by political, religious or communal considerations, discharging a constitutional duty. — Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 647.

Constitutional LawArticle 32 cannot be used to attack a final judgment of the Supreme Court, directly or indirectly; review and curative petitions are the remedy. Rajesh Chander Sood consciously distinguished D.S. Nakara and is not per incuriam. — Satish Chander Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2025 INSC 491; AIR 2025 SC 2050.

Religious FreedomChallenges to the Hindu religious endowment laws of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were left to the respective High Courts, given the distinct statutory schemes and local context; they may use expert committees. — Dayanand Saraswati Swamiji v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 465.

Consumer LawOn a plea against private hospitals forcing patients to buy medicines and implants from in-house pharmacies at high prices, States were directed to examine the issue and take policy decisions. — Siddharth Dalmia v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 351.

Human RightsThe fifteen directions issued in L. Muruganantham for prisoners with disabilities, covering identification, accessible infrastructure, audits and healthcare, were applied across every State and Union territory. — Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2025.

Administrative LawThe Supreme Court will not interfere under Article 32 with the Allahabad High Court’s administrative requirement that litigants appear in person for photo affidavits; the petitioner may represent to the Chief Justice of that High Court. — Biswajit Chowdhury v. Registrar General, High Court of Allahabad, Supreme Court, 2025.

Education LawThe Court cannot use Article 32 to compel a State to adopt the National Education Policy, 2020. — G.S. Mani v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Supreme Court, 2025.

Civil ProcedureA High Court judgment cannot be invalidated in an Article 32 petition; the remedy is to seek its recall or to appeal under Article 136. — Vimal Babu Dhumadiya v. State of Maharashtra, Supreme Court, 2025.

Election LawA PIL against public spending on statues and memorials of a Chief Minister and a party symbol was disposed of with emphasis on the Election Commission’s 2016 guidelines barring spending public money or using public places for party propaganda. — Ravi Kant v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court, 2025.

Tax LawBorder tax on tourist vehicles cannot be called illegal without challenging the State laws that levy it, and such challenges should first be brought in the jurisdictional High Courts. — Muthyala Sunil Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2024 SC 3496.

Criminal LawHabeas corpus is a prerogative writ to secure release from unlawful detention by an official or a private person. In detention cases the Court does not re-examine subjective satisfaction, but checks whether it rested on objective facts or was tainted by malice or irrelevant considerations. — Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, AIR 2024 SC 1610.

Administrative LawCourts examine the legality, not the wisdom, of policy, and cannot direct the State to adopt a particular scheme such as community kitchens merely because a better alternative exists. — Anun Dhawan v. Union of India, AIR 2024 SC 1248.

Securities LawIn the Adani–Hindenburg matter, the Court declined to transfer the SEBI investigation. Review of a specialised regulator’s policy is limited to breach of fundamental rights, the Constitution or a statute, or manifest arbitrariness, and courts must not substitute their own view. — Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, AIR 2024 SC 414.

Human RightsOn a petition by a passenger with a disability, the Court made mandatory detailed accessibility guidelines for airports, covering wheelchair availability, coded boarding passes, UDID integration and staff sensitisation, extending them to elderly and injured passengers. — Arushi Singh v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2024.

Criminal LawThe Supreme Court may order further investigation at any stage, even after a charge sheet. Given the plainly ineffective investigation into a long-unsolved death, it was transferred from the SIT to the CBI. — Awungshi Chirmayo v. Government of NCT of Delhi, Supreme Court, 2024.

Constitutional LawArticle 32 lets the Court issue any direction needed to enforce Part III, and separation of powers is no bar to that, but courts cannot make law or intrude on the legislature’s domain. The Chief Justice also called for a law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. — Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 920.

Family LawParties cannot file writ petitions under Article 32 or 226 seeking divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown; that relief is for the Supreme Court under Article 142 in appropriate cases. — Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 INSC 468.

Administrative LawThe Bar Association’s plea to convert land allotted to the Court into lawyers’ chambers could not be granted on the judicial side and was left to the administrative side. — Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 INSC 278.

Judicial AppointmentsCourts cannot quash a collegium recommendation by certiorari or direct the collegium to reconsider it by mandamus, since that would substitute personal opinion on a candidate’s suitability. — Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, AIR 2023 SC 886; (2023) 5 SCC 661; 2023 INSC 122.

Criminal LawTerritorial jurisdiction over a PMLA offence, which depends on disputed facts about where the activities took place, must be raised before the Special Court and not decided in a writ petition. — Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2023 SC 875; (2023) 4 SCC 357; 2023 INSC 101.

Service LawTo interfere with a penalty in judicial review it must be strikingly, not merely, disproportionate; even then, the matter should normally go back to the disciplinary authority to choose the penalty. — Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, AIR 2023 SC 554; 2023 INSC 55.

Constitutional LawAn Article 32 petition is not a route for attacking a judgment of the Supreme Court that binds the parties. — Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2023.

Administrative LawA constitutional court cannot command a legislature or rule-making authority to make a law, let alone dictate its subject or form. — Binu Tamta v. High Court of Delhi, Supreme Court, 2023.

Free Speech & MediaA sweeping plea to regulate news channels and media trials was not entertained, given free speech, the existing self-regulatory mechanism headed by a retired Judge, and pending hate-speech cases. The petitioner was left to approach the authorities. — Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2023.

Administrative LawAn Article 32 petition by a former Additional Advocate General to recover disputed professional fees from the State was not the proper remedy; his other remedies were kept open. — Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., Supreme Court, 2023.

Free Speech & MediaThe Court refused to revoke the CBFC certificate of the film ‘Adipurush’; it will not act as an appellate censor board on the basis of individual sensitivities. — Mamta Rani v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2023.

Administrative LawRestoring railway fare concessions for senior citizens is a fiscal policy decision for the Government, so the Court declined to issue a writ. — M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2023.

Family LawThe Court cannot command Parliament to legislate, so pleas to raise the minimum marriage age of women to 21 were not entertained. — Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2023.

Administrative LawA plea for a framework allowing citizens to petition Parliament directly was rejected, since it lies wholly within Parliament’s domain. — Karan Garg v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2023.

Constitutional LawConstitutional courts may test statutes and subordinate legislation for both procedure and substance, applying Articles 14, 19 and 21 together, including the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness. The 2016 amendment to the Benami Act was held not to operate retrospectively. — Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 4558.

Administrative LawAction based on an authority’s subjective satisfaction is reviewable; the court first examines whether the facts on which the opinion was formed actually existed. — Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 (10) SCALE 42.

Service LawPolicy questions involving technical and economic trade-offs are best settled through the democratic process rather than adjudication, though the Court will still strike down policies that infringe rights. The One Rank One Pension policy was upheld. — Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, (2022) 7 SCC 323.

Constitutional LawJudicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away. — Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 2022 SC 2713.

Administrative LawCourts generally defer to executive policy based on expert advice, especially in public health, but will intervene where fundamental rights are breached or the decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide. — Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 (7) SCALE 256.

Education LawAn authority’s decision will be left alone unless it was taken without considering relevant circumstances or is manifestly arbitrary. — Dr. R. Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee, AIR 2022 SC 2306.

Criminal LawCourts can review the government’s decision on a remission application under Section 432 CrPC for arbitrariness and direct reconsideration; the presiding judge was asked to give a fresh, reasoned opinion. — Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2022 SC 2017.

Religious FreedomJudicial review can work in a dialogic way, encouraging solutions acceptable to all sides; the Court used this approach on Covid-19 protocols for the last rites of Parsi Zoroastrians. — Surat Parsi Panchayat Board v. Union of India, (2022) 4 SCC 534.

Administrative LawCourts cannot dictate a particular policy, but they can test a policy against the Constitution and require the State to take constitutional values into account when framing it. — S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, AIR 2022 SC 1494.

Administrative LawPIL has done much good, but frivolous petitions clog the courts, and locus standi must be examined carefully to keep private interests from posing as public causes. A PIL reopening a title dispute that the State itself had conceded was an abuse of process. — Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 (4) SCALE 284.

Constitutional LawArticle 32 is itself a fundamental right, and declining to entertain a petition is only judicial self-restraint. Delay alone cannot defeat a clear violation of fundamental rights. A petitioner must ordinarily be an aggrieved person, though PIL challenges are recognised, and the Court may award compensation for violations. — Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 (4) SCALE 199.

ReservationNo mandamus can direct a State to provide reservation, or even to collect data justifying a decision not to, even where under-representation of SCs and STs is shown. — State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal, AIR 2022 SC 918; (2022) 3 SCC 633.

Administrative LawJudicial review examines the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision. — Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2022) 3 SCC 203.

Service LawReview of a High Court Full Court decision is very narrow and is not an appeal. The Court will intervene where power is used unfairly, unreasonably or in bad faith, but it will not recast policy; it only checks that the action is not arbitrary. — Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 (3) SCALE 99.

Constitutional LawThe Court described itself as bound not only to enforce fundamental rights but to safeguard constitutional values, the secular and democratic character of the Republic and the rule of law. — Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2022.

Criminal LawThe Court refused to consolidate FIRs from across the country at one police station. Victims in other States have a right to pursue complaints where they were lodged, and compelling them to go to one distant station would override CrPC jurisdiction; clubbing is possible only in suitable cases. — Anubhav Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court, 2022.

Criminal LawA petition under Article 32 challenging a bail order, which named the trial judges as parties, was deprecated; there was no reason to bypass the ordinary remedies. — Balakram @ Bhura v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court, 2022.

Criminal LawQuashing of an FIR or criminal proceedings should be sought from the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, not through an Article 32 petition. — Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court, 2022.

Administrative LawThe Court cannot command the legislature to enact or amend a law; a plea to amend the Hindu Succession Act as recommended by the Law Commission was dismissed. — S. Venkatesh v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2022.

Constitutional LawAn Article 32 petition can be entertained on the plea that an earlier judgment is wrong. Finality matters, but the Court may reconsider a decision that does not state the law correctly and refer it to a larger Bench. — HDFC Bank v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2022.

Civil ProcedureA petition asking the Supreme Court to direct a High Court to hear a pending case early was dismissed as misconceived. — Nepal Das v. High Court of Calcutta, Supreme Court, 2022.

Criminal LawTransfer of a trial needs a reasonable, not imaginary, apprehension that justice will not be done. The widow and daughter of murdered former minister Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, as victims entitled to a fair trial, showed such an apprehension, and the trial and further investigation were moved to the CBI court at Hyderabad. — Suneetha Narreddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Supreme Court, 2022.

Criminal LawCourts acting under Articles 32 and 226 should direct a CBI investigation only in rare cases, where the record shows a prima facie case and such a step is needed for credibility, national ramifications or complete justice; bare allegations against local police are not enough. An accused has no say in the choice of investigating agency. — Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, Supreme Court, 2022.

Criminal LawTo avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, cheating FIRs registered against the accused in several States were ordered to be clubbed State-wise for joint trial. — Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2022.

Administrative LawMandamus cannot direct the legislature to enact a law or the government to implement a Cabinet decision. It may enforce an administrative order that confers rights or creates an estoppel, or quash one that is unfair. Policy decisions are interfered with only if patently arbitrary or discriminatory. — Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2022.

Administrative LawQuo warranto is a narrow remedy, available only where the holder of a public office lacks the prescribed eligibility or was appointed contrary to statutory rules. The appointment of a Vice-Chancellor made in breach of UGC norms was set aside. — Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, Supreme Court, 2022.

Source document ↗

Judgments on Article 32

OCT 20268THU

LOK 2026 (10) SC 82 · Supreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India v. Union of India

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 1097

SubjectMedical

JudgesJustice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta

ActsUniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices, 2015

The issues raised concern public importance, touching upon accessibility, affordability, and integrity of healthcare — While the medical profession is subject to ethical restrictions under the Indian Medical Council Regulations, 2002, the efficacy of regulatory norms for pharmaceutical companies depends on effective implementation, transparency, and…

MAY 202629FRI

LOK 2026 (5) SC 295 · Supreme Court of India

Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 599 : AIR 2026 SC 2916

SubjectDetention

JudgesJustice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih

ActsConstitution of India 1950 — Article 21 - Article 226 - Article 32

Deprivation of personal liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of constitutional provisions constitutes illegal detention. Once a competent court orders the release of a prisoner on parole and sureties are verified, continued detention without a stay order from a superior court…

MAY 20175FRI

LOK 2017 (5) SC 56 · Supreme Court of India

Milap Choraria v. Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.

Subject–

JudgesJustice Kurian Joseph, Justice R. Banumathi

ActsConstitution of India (Articles 32, 142 and 246(1))

APR 20175WED

LOK 2017 (4) SC 57 · Supreme Court of India

Kalpana Mehta v. Union Of India

Subject–

Judges–

ActsConstitution of India (Articles 32, 136 and 145(3))

MAR 201727MON

LOK 2017 (3) SC 274 · Supreme Court of India

Sheetal Shankar Salvi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Subject–

JudgesJustice S. A. Bobde, Justice L. Nageswara Rao

ActsConstitution of India (Article 32)

FEB 201715WED

LOK 2017 (2) SC 159 · Supreme Court of India

Asha Ranjan v. State Of Bihar & Ors.

Subject–

JudgesJustice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy

ActsPrisoners Act, 1900 (Section 29); Prisons Act, 1894 (Section 26); Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Section 7(2)); Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Section 13(3)); Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Section 28); Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Section 6)

JAN 201716MON

LOK 2017 (1) SC 164 · Supreme Court of India

Meera Santosh Pal And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors

Subject–

JudgesJustice S. A. Bobde, Justice L. Nageswara Rao

ActsConstitution of India (Articles 21 and 32)

JAN 20174WED

LOK 2017 (1) SC 48 · Supreme Court of India

Gautam Jain v. Union Of India

Subject–

JudgesJustice A.K. Sikri, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

ActsForeign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (Section 37); Constitution of India (Articles 22, 22(5) and 32)

JAN 20172MON

LOK 2017 (1) SC 213 · Supreme Court of India

Abhiram Singh v. C. D. Commachen & Ors.

Subject–

JudgesJustice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Dr. D Y Chandrachud

ActsRepresentation of the People Act, 1951 (Sections 16, 123(3) and 123); Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (Sections 123(3) and 123(3A)); Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (Section 123); Constitution of India (Articles 19(1)(a), 25, 29(1), 32, 102(1)(e), 191(1)(e) and 191)

JAN 20172MON

LOK 2017 (1) SC 26 · Supreme Court of India

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar & Ors.

Subject–

JudgesJustice S.A. Bobde, Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Dr. D Y Chandrachud, Justice L. Nageswara Rao

ActsGeneral Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 6); Government of India Act, 1935 (Sections 43, 88 and 90); Government India Act, 1935 (Section 90); Constitution of India (Articles 14, 32, 154, 168, 200, 213(2), 213, 213(1), 213(2)(a), 213(2)(b), 213(3), 249, 250, 304(b), 352(4), 352(1), 356(1), 356(3), 356, 357(2), 360, 360(2) and 367(2))

JAN 20172MON

LOK 2017 (1) SC 21 · Supreme Court of India

Yash Pal & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors

Subject–

JudgesJustice T.S. Thakur

ActsArmed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (Section 3(o)); Constitution of India (Article 32)

DEC 201616FRI

LOK 2016 (12) SC 1618 · Supreme Court of India

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Gtl Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Etc

Subject–

JudgesJustice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Prafulla C. Pant

ActsGujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Section 145A); Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Section 20); Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (Section 3); Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Sections 3(r) and 3(s)); Constitution of India (Articles 32, 254 and 265)

DEC 201615THU

LOK 2016 (12) SC 1513 · Supreme Court of India

Justice (Retd. ) Markandey Katju v. Lok Sabha

Subject–

Judges–

ActsBill of Rights Act, 1688 (Article 9); Government of India Act, 1915 (Section 67); Government of India Act, 1935 (Sections 71 and 86(1)); Legislature Act, 1908 (Section 242); Defamation Act, 1996 (Section 3); Constitution of India (Articles 19(1)(a), 19(2), 32, 105(1), 105, 105(2), 105(3), 118, 121, 122(2) and 194)

DEC 201614WED

LOK 2016 (12) SC 1412 · Supreme Court of India