#Constitutional Remedies

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that repeated multiple-choice questions in a medical entrance exam violate the right to fair assessment under Articles 14 and 21, entitling affected candidates to one compensatory mark. This sets a critical precedent for exam authorities to rectify technical errors that arbitrarily limit scoring opportunities, ensuring no student is penalized for institutional negligence.

Rajasthan High Court directs a ₹25,000 deposit as a precondition for producing the corpus in a habeas corpus petition, refundable only if the live-in partner agrees to accompany the petitioner. The ruling underscores judicial discretion in balancing procedural costs with fundamental rights under Article 226.

Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that administrative inaction on school upgradation proposals, despite compliance with statutory requirements, warrants judicial intervention under Article 226. The ruling reinforces that delays violating the Right to Education (Article 21-A) and procedural fairness justify a writ of mandamus directing immediate approval.

Karnataka High Court quashed parole denial grounded in non-specific security risks, emphasizing that parole decisions must rely on objective material and align with reformative justice. The ruling underscores that blanket concerns about absconding convicts cannot override an individual's right to parole when prior compliance with conditions is proven.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that borrowers may bypass Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and directly approach the High Court under Article 226 only if the DRT is non-functional. The court mandates filing a Section 17 application within 7 days and depositing 10% of dues to maintain status quo on secured assets.

The Karnataka High Court struck down a police-directed bank account freeze that lacked any specification of the alleged crime, amount involved, or factual nexus to the account holder, affirming that such coercive measures must satisfy the triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. This ruling reinforces that financial freezing is not a default investigative tool and protects small business owners from arbitrary state action under Article 21 and 300A.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that police cannot harass or threaten relatives of an accused to disclose their whereabouts while executing a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), as it violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21. The court directed police to refrain from such coercive actions, reinforcing the balance between judicial orders and fundamental rights.

Karnataka High Court rules that termination of pregnancy beyond the 24-week statutory limit under the MTP Act requires a medical board’s assessment of foetal viability and maternal risk, overriding judicial discretion. The ruling underscores the primacy of medical expertise in late-term termination cases, while mandating victim care and rehabilitation for minor sexual assault survivors.

Madras HC rules that administrative delays in executing land assignment orders for Adi Dravidar beneficiaries violate constitutional rights under Article 21. The court mandates a 12-week deadline for survey and demarcation, ensuring timely implementation of welfare schemes and protecting marginalized communities' right to shelter.

Bombay High Court holds that residents suffering damage from blasting during highway construction are entitled to compensation, even if their land was not acquired under LARR Act 2013.

Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses writ petition for suppression of material facts, reaffirming that litigants must disclose all relevant proceedings to invoke constitutional jurisdiction.