Ramanpreet Kaur

Excerpt  In this case, the issues raised before the Court were regarding the conducting of the Chardham Yatra. The Uttarakhand’s State Cabinet had previously allowed the Chardham Yatra in a phased manner. But the same was challenged before this Court. Responding to this, the Court stayed the decision of the

Excerpt  In this case, the Petitioners sought the regularization of their services on the posts on which they were working on a contract basis. The Petitioners were recruited through an advertisement and worked for 10 years in the Respondent Organization. The Court declared that the Regular appointment had to be

In this case, the father of the deceased renowned actor Sushant Singh Rajput filed a plea to restrain the release of movies purportedly based on the life and death of his son as it infringed the right to privacy, right to free trial, and other concerned rights.

In the present case, the Petitioner a multimedia conglomerate with a widespread presence in print and electronic media filed a suit against the Defendants on account of the persistent, malicious, and defamatory campaign started by Defendant nos.1 across its multiple social media platforms against Plaintiff, its news channel ‘Aaj Tak’ and its employees. Responding to this, the Court restrained the Defendants from making any defamatory or derogatory posts/tweets or making any adverse remarks or uploading any content against the Plaintiff on any platform.

In this case, a petition was filed by the Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools, a registered association to seek quashing of the orders passed by the Directorate of Education dated 18th April and 28th August 2020, affirming that the same prevented private unaided recognized schools from collecting a part of fees i.e., Annual charges and development fees beyond the lockdown period and deferring it till physical openings of the school. Responding to this, the Court quashed the two orders as the Respondent had no power to indefinitely postpone the collection of Annual Charges and Development fees. And held that the impugned acts were prejudicial to the said Schools and would cause an unreasonable restriction in their functioning.

In this case, a PIL was filed by the Petitioner, an advocate by profession, challenging the condition imposed by the Respondents private medical institutions that the students seeking admission to MBBS Course to submit bank guarantee against the annual fees for the next 3½ years of course duration in addition to the deposit of annual fee for the first year of the course, at the time of admission. Responding to this, the Bench of Justices Sangeet Lodha and Rameshwar Vyas declared the said condition as illegal and thereby restrained all Government and private institutions from recovering any amount as advance fee in addition to the fee for one year from any student admitted to the course.

In the present case, the Allahabad High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant, Dr Shaharyar Ali, a senior teacher in a college and a Head of Department. The Applicant was accused of posting an objectionable and obscene post on his Facebook ID regarding Smriti Zubin Irani, Union Cabinet Minister of Textiles & Women and Child Development. Further, via observing the circumstances of the case, the Court declared that the contents of the post were indeed such which may, in fact, promote or in all likelihood of promoting ill-will or hatred between different communities. The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir further said that the conduct of this kind prima facie does not entitle the Applicant to the indulgence of Pre-arrest Bail