Constitutional Law News and Insights

Constitutional Law

Stan Swamy Seen as Tribal Rights Fighter, But Was UAPA Accused: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court ruled that no prior permission is required to erect memorials on private patta land.

While observing that Stan Swamy is viewed by sections of society as a tribal rights activist, the Court noted that he was also an accused under the UAPA.

Applying parity with an earlier ruling on a Stan Swamy memorial, the Court permitted a stupa commemorating a 1755 anti-colonial battle, reaffirming that executive instructions cannot override proprietary rights and underscoring the constitutional duty to preserve historical memory.

[Siva Kalai Ambalam v. Distrcit Collector, Dindugul]

Read Details / 11 hours ago

MananBookmark

MP High Court Grants Protection To Young Live-In Couple & Urges Caution Over Early Life Choices

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted police protection to a 20-year-old live-in couple residing together against the wishes of the woman’s parents.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nandakumar v State of Kerala, the Court held that adults have the right to live together outside marriage and are entitled to protection from violence or coercion.

At the same time, the Court cautioned that exercising constitutional rights at an early age may carry serious social, educational, and economic consequences, particularly for young women.

Emphasising that having rights and enforcing them are distinct, the Court directed authorities to provide protection and asked counsel to apprise the couple of the concerns expressed.

[Ruchika & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.]

Read order / 14 hours ago

MahiraBookmark

J&K&L High Court Issues Notice on ₹5 Crore Compensation Plea Over Alleged Illegal Demolition

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has issued notice to the Union Territory administration on a plea seeking Rs 5 crore compensation for the alleged illegal demolition of a shop structure in Udhampur district.

Justice Rahul Bharti directed that the status quo be maintained at the site and ordered that no construction or reconstruction be carried out until further orders.

The petition was filed by Farooq Ahmad Wani, who claimed the shop was erected pursuant to an agreement executed in 2018 and was demolished without following due process of law. Alleging substantial financial loss, Wani sought compensation for the destruction of his investment.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on January 31, 2026.

Read Details / 20 hours ago

MananBookmark

Right to Life Prevails: Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Closure of Kangra Poultry Farm

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ordered the immediate closure of a poultry farm in Kangra, holding that the right to livelihood cannot prevail over the right to life and a clean, hygienic environment of nearby residents.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that the farm was operating barely 50–60 metres from residential houses, in violation of Central Pollution Control Board guidelines mandating a 500-metre distance from habitation.

The court found that around 6,000 birds were being reared, causing environmental and health concerns due to foul smell and waste discharge.

While directing closure, the court granted liberty to the owner to relocate the farm in compliance with prescribed distance norms.

Read Details / 20 hours ago

MananBookmark

Karnataka High Court Allows 26-Week Pregnancy Termination for Minor Rape Survivor

The Karnataka High Court permitted the medical termination of a 26-week pregnancy of a minor rape survivor, holding that forcing her to continue with an unwanted pregnancy would violate her right to life and dignity.

Justice R Nataraj observed that courts must not hesitate to protect the honour and dignity of a 17-year-old survivor of sexual assault.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to allow termination beyond the statutory limit, emphasising that bodily autonomy and dignity must prevail in such cases.

Read Details / 20 hours ago

MananBookmark

Brevity of Reasons in Sanction Refusal Not Ground for Writ: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal of a prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC against police officials, in relation to an FIR lodged alleging harassment and false implication of the petitioner’s family.

The petitioner claimed collusion between the police and an illegal occupant of her property, and argued that the sanction refusal was a non-speaking order due to its brevity.

Rejecting the plea, the Court held that decisions on sanction are administrative in nature, and a writ court cannot examine the sufficiency of reasons or act as an appellate authority, provided there is due application of mind.

Finding that the competent authority had considered all relevant material and that no case for sanction was made out, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition.

[Triveni v. Home Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Read Details / 21 hours ago

Thanush SBookmark

Bombay High Court Holds Emergency Hearing at Chief Justice’s Residence Over Court Staff Election Duty

The Bombay High Court conducted an emergency hearing from the Chief Justice’s residence after learning that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Commissioner had directed subordinate court staff to report for election duty during court vacations.

Taking note of a 2008 decision of the High Court’s Administrative Judges’ Committee exempting judicial staff from election duties, the Court observed that the High Court exercises complete control and superintendence over subordinate courts and their staff.

The Bench restrained the Municipal Commissioner from acting on the communication and from issuing any such directions in the future. It also directed the Commissioner to file a personal affidavit explaining the authority under which the order was issued.

The matter will be heard further on January 5.

Read Order / 3 days ago

MahiraBookmark

Consideration for Promotion Is a Fundamental Right & Not Promotion: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that promotion is neither a vested nor a fundamental right, and that only the right to be considered for promotion is protected under law.

The petitioner filed a writ plea under Article 226, seeking directions for her promotion as Senior Town Planner in the Department of Town and Country Planning, Punjab, before retirement. Her representation for promotion had not been considered.

While the Court upheld the rejection of her promotion claim, it noted that she had discharged the duties of a Senior Town Planner.

Accordingly, it granted her the applicable pay scale and allowances from July 21, 2023 till her retirement, treating it as a monetary entitlement.

Read Details / 3 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

‘State Is Like a Parent’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Warns Against Impulsive Defamation Cases

The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings against a local media house, observing that the State must act with “patience and maturity” when faced with criticism.

Drawing a parental analogy, the Court observed that governments cannot claim defamation unless specific officials or departments are targeted with false and malicious imputations.

Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao emphasised that fair reporting done in good faith is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

He cautioned that impulsive criminal prosecutions by the State against the media risk creating a chilling effect on free speech and undermine democratic values.

Read Details / 4 days ago

MananBookmark

Right To Privacy Not Absolute; Voice Samples Can Be Compelled For Probe: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to privacy, though fundamental, is not absolute and can yield to legitimate State interests during a criminal investigation.

Justice Neena Krishna Bansal directed meat exporter Moin Qureshi to provide voice samples to the CBI for comparison with intercepted telephone calls from 2013–14 in an ongoing corruption probe.

It held that voice samples do not amount to testimonial compulsion, as they are not communicative evidence but material meant solely for scientific comparison.

The Court observed that compelling voice samples is a reasonable investigative measure and does not infringe constitutional safeguards.

Read Details / 4 days ago

MananBookmark

P&H High Court Rejects Quashing Plea By Lawyer Booked For ‘Casteist Goons’ Remark In Speech

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant relief to advocate Rajat Kalsan, who is facing an FIR for allegedly calling villagers “casteist goons” during a public speech.

The case relates to remarks made at a public meeting concerning a 2024 murder, following which an FIR was registered in July 2025.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that the repeated and conscious use of the term “caste” showed intent and could not be treated as casual or incidental speech. The Court observed that such remarks have the potential to disturb public order, and an advocate’s professional duty is to represent clients before courts, not to mobilise crowds or lead public agitations.

Finding no satisfactory explanation for the expression used, the Court dismissed the plea.

[Rajat Kalsan v. State of Haryana]

Read Judgement / 4 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

‘Very Sorry State of Affairs’: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹20 Lakh Cost on State for Illegal Demolition

The Allahabad High Court has imposed ₹20 lakh costs on the Rae Bareli district authorities for illegally demolishing a citizen’s property without notice or hearing, calling it a “very sorry state of affairs.”

Justice Alok Mathur held that the action violated Article 300A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property.

The Court ordered restoration of possession of the vacant land to the petitioner and directed an enquiry against the erring officials.

It noted that revenue authorities acted arbitrarily, ignored due process and Supreme Court guidelines on demolitions, and caused serious infringement of constitutional and statutory safeguards.

Read Details / 5 days ago

MananBookmark

Justice After 18 Years: Bombay High Court Upholds Rights of HIV+ Worker

The Bombay High Court held that denying permanency to a hospital sweeper solely due to his HIV-positive status was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the petitioner, a poor sweeper, had performed the same duties as permanent employees but was unjustly denied regularisation

Setting aside the Industrial Court’s order, the Court directed that permanency be granted with effect from December 1, 2006.

However, applying the doctrine of delay and laches, the Court restricted arrears to 90 days prior to filing of the complaint, balancing equity with the hospital’s financial burden.

Read Details / 5 days ago

MananBookmark

Art 21 Cannot Override Public Order in Riot Cases: Karnataka High Court Denies Bail in Bengaluru Riots Matter

The Karnataka High Court refused bail to an accused in the 2020 Bengaluru riots case, holding that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be examined in isolation from the discharge of fundamental duties.

The Court observed that constitutional rights function within a framework of social responsibility and public order.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the offences, and their impact on communal harmony, the Court found no grounds to grant bail at this stage.

The Court observed that individual liberty must yield where actions pose a threat to societal peace and security.

[Afzal Basha v. National Investigation Agency]

5 days ago

MahiraBookmark

Orissa High Court Refuses to Entertain PIL Against MLAs’ Salary Hike Bill

The Orissa High Court declined to interfere in a PIL questioning the constitutional propriety of the Odisha Legislative Assembly Members’ Salary, Allowances and Pension (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which proposes enhanced monthly packages of Rs 3.45 lakh for MLAs.

The package, to be implemented retrospectively from June 5 last year, would also entitle MLAs to arrears of nearly Rs 65 lakh.

The Court termed the petition premature because the related bill is pending the governor’s assent and has not become law.

It observed that courts have no power to judicially review the validity of a legislative bill before its enactment.

Read Details / 7 days ago

Thanush SBookmark