Filter posts by category

Landmark Judgements

Supreme Court RJS Ruling 2025
Job Updates, Landmark Judgements

Supreme Court RJS Ruling 2025: No Relief for Late Caste Certificates

By / / 10 minutes of reading

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court RJS Ruling 2025 in Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court and Ors. dismissed appeals by five candidates for the Rajasthan Civil Judge post. The court upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to deny appointments due to late submission of caste certificates. The Supreme Court RJS Ruling 2025 emphasizes strict adherence to cut-off dates. This blog explores the Supreme Court RJS Ruling 2025, its background, and implications for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Supreme Court RJS Ruling 2025: No Relief for Late Caste Certificates Read More »

Prompt Medical Care is a Fundamental Right
Landmark Judgements

Prompt Medical Care Is a Fundamental Right

By / / 14 minutes of reading

In the case of House Owners Welfare Association (Regd.) v. State of Haryana and others (2025 P&H HC), the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that prompt medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, refusing to quash a layout plan incorporating a clinic in Sector 17, Panchkula, despite claims of increased traffic. Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Vikas Suri emphasized the importance of accessible healthcare for the elderly and disabled, balancing it against the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). This blog explores the ruling, its legal implications, and its significance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Prompt Medical Care Is a Fundamental Right Read More »

Landmark Judgements

Munnesh v. State of UP (2025 SC): New Supreme Court Guidelines on Bail and Anticipatory Bail

By / / 13 minutes of reading

In Munnesh v. State of UP (2025 SC), the Supreme Court issued new guidelines on bail and anticipatory bail, mandating petitioners to disclose their criminal antecedents in the petition synopsis. Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan warned that false disclosures could lead to petition dismissal, addressing the issue of non-disclosure that often misleads courts. This blog explores the Supreme Court guidelines on bail, their implications, and their relevance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Munnesh v. State of UP (2025 SC): New Supreme Court Guidelines on Bail and Anticipatory Bail Read More »

Landmark Judgements, Job Updates

Supreme Court Guidelines on Setting Aside Selection Process: State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC)

By / / 16 minutes of reading

In State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC), the Supreme Court laid down 4 key principles for setting aside an entire selection process due to irregularities, upholding the cancellation of 25,000 teaching and non-teaching appointments by the West Bengal SSC in 2016. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar emphasized systemic fraud, evidence standards, and the priority of process purity over candidate inconvenience. This blog explores the Supreme Court guidelines on setting aside selection process, their implications, and their relevance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Supreme Court Guidelines on Setting Aside Selection Process: State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC) Read More »

Landmark Judgements

Supreme Court on Bonus Rights: Charitable Trusts Must Pay Workers Bonus

By / / 16 minutes of reading

In Management of Worth Trust v. The Secretary, Worth Trust Workers Union (2025 SC), the Supreme Court ruled that charitable trusts running factories cannot deny workers their bonus rights under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, emphasizing employee welfare. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran rejected the trust’s claim for exemption, ordering bonus payments within a month. This blog explores the Supreme Court on bonus rights, its implications, and its relevance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Supreme Court on Bonus Rights: Charitable Trusts Must Pay Workers Bonus Read More »

Landmark Judgements

Essential vs Over Qualification in Govt Jobs: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling in Jomon KK v. Shajimon P (2025 SC)

By / / 17 minutes of reading

In Jomon KK v. Shajimon P (2025 SC), the Supreme Court clarified that there is no universal rule to prefer candidates with higher qualifications over those with the essential qualification in government jobs, emphasizing fairness in the selection process. Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan upheld the exclusion of a candidate with a Syrang’s licence from the post of Boat Lascar, highlighting the need for a level playing field. This blog explores the Supreme Court on essential vs over qualification, its implications, and its relevance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Essential vs Over Qualification in Govt Jobs: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling in Jomon KK v. Shajimon P (2025 SC) Read More »

Dabur India Ltd v. State of Maharashtra
Landmark Judgements

Dabur India Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (2025 Bombay HC): Label Change Ordered for Fake Claims

By / / 11 minutes of reading

In Dabur India Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (2025 Bombay HC), the Bombay High Court ordered Dabur to remove terms like “anti-inflammatory,” “anti-bacterial,” and “analgesic” from its Dabur Meswak and Dabur Herb’l Anti-Bacterial Toothpaste Tulsi labels by June 2025, following concerns by the Maharashtra FDA. Justices G S Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna accepted Dabur’s undertaking, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions. This blog analyzes the case, its implications, and its relevance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Dabur India Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (2025 Bombay HC): Label Change Ordered for Fake Claims Read More »

Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Landmark Judgements

Case Analysis: Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 SC) – A Landmark Judgment on Free Speech

By / / 15 minutes of reading

In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 SC), the Supreme Court quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgadhi, clarifying Section 173(3) BNSS 2023 on preliminary enquiry before FIR registration and emphasizing the protection of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan addressed conflicts with Lalita Kumari (2014), setting a precedent for speech-related offences. This blog analyzes the case, its legal implications, and its relevance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Case Analysis: Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 SC) – A Landmark Judgment on Free Speech Read More »

Arrest Memo vs Grounds of Arrest
Landmark Judgements, Legal Updates

Arrest Memo vs Grounds of Arrest: Supreme Court’s Big Update in Ashish Kakkar Case 2025

By / / 16 minutes of reading

In a landmark ruling in Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh (2025 SC), the Supreme Court clarified that an arrest memo does not fulfill the requirement of supplying grounds of arrest under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, setting aside the arrest and remand of the appellant. Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal emphasized that non-compliance with this constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest. This blog provides a detailed analysis of the arrest memo vs grounds of arrest debate, its legal implications, and its significance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Arrest Memo vs Grounds of Arrest: Supreme Court’s Big Update in Ashish Kakkar Case 2025 Read More »

₹15 Lakh Judicial Controversy
Legal Updates, Landmark Judgements

₹15 Lakh Judicial Controversy Ends: Justice Nirmal Yadav Acquitted by Chandigarh Court

By / / 14 minutes of reading

After a 17-year legal battle, the Chandigarh Court acquitted Justice Nirmal Yadav and three others in the ₹15 lakh judicial controversy on March 29, 2025. The CBI case, originating in 2008, involved a misdelivered cash packet meant for Justice Yadav but sent to Justice Nirmaljit Kaur. This blog explores the case’s history, key developments, and its significance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

₹15 Lakh Judicial Controversy Ends: Justice Nirmal Yadav Acquitted by Chandigarh Court Read More »

Supreme Court recalls 2019 order
Current Affairs, Landmark Judgements

Taj Trapezium Zone Tree Felling: Supreme Court Recalls 2019 Order to Protect Green Cover

By / / 11 minutes of reading

The Supreme Court recalls 2019 order that allowed tree felling in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) without prior permission, reinforcing environmental protection in MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (2025). Addressing illegal felling of 454 trees in Mathura-Vrindavan, the Court imposed penalties and mandated compensatory afforestation. Explore the ruling’s impact on agro-forestry and conservation efforts in the TTZ.

Taj Trapezium Zone Tree Felling: Supreme Court Recalls 2019 Order to Protect Green Cover Read More »

Shopping Basket
Scroll to Top