Topic
Rajasthan High Court reaffirms that couples in love marriages are entitled to state protection under Article 21, even against family threats. The ruling mandates police intervention to safeguard their right to life and liberty, relying on the landmark Lata Singh v. State of U.P. judgment.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that guest faculty hired on honorarium are entitled to 26 weeks of paid maternity leave, rejecting the state's argument that contractual status disqualifies them. This decision extends statutory maternity protections to non-permanent academic workers, affirming that constitutional rights to gender equality and dignified work override formal employment labels.
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.
The Supreme Court ruled that legal representatives of a deceased party cannot bypass Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to challenge arbitral awards via constitutional remedies under Article 227. The Act's complete code doctrine mandates statutory remedies, reinforcing procedural exclusivity for aggrieved parties.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that when death is conclusively established through medical records, post-mortem report, and religious certification, authorities cannot deny a death certificate on technical grounds like form defects. This sets a binding standard for registrars: once death is proven, a certificate must be issued within two weeks of proper application, safeguarding families' rights to legal recognition and benefits.
Sikkim High Court rules that courts cannot grant interim compensation in writ petitions under Article 226 without a formal application and opportunity for adversarial hearing, reinforcing procedural safeguards in constitutional remedies. The decision underscores that even extraordinary writ jurisdiction does not bypass fundamental due process requirements.