Topic
Fundamental Rights in Indian law refer to the basic liberties guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, including equality, life, liberty, and freedom of expression, enforceable against state action.
The Delhi High Court permitted Natasha Narwal to travel to the UK for an academic conference despite pending UAPA charges, ruling that mere allegations cannot restrict her Article 21 right to travel abroad. The court imposed safeguards including a ₹1 lakh bond and undertakings to return, balancing personal liberty with investigative needs.
The Delhi High Court directed masking of identity markers in quashed criminal orders to shield the petitioner’s family from harassment, upholding a right to be forgotten under Article 21. This lets those with quashed criminal cases seek removal of personal details from public court records to prevent ongoing stigma.
The Gauhati High Court held that arrest notices under BNSS sections 47 and 48 omitting grounds of arrest violate Articles 21 and 22, vitiating the arrest and barring NDPS Section 37, thereby granting bail to the accused and upholding fundamental rights.
Bombay HC rules Maharashtra's blanket prohibition on new B.Pharmacy/D.Pharmacy colleges violates constitutional limits, citing PCI approvals and Supreme Court precedent. Interim relief granted for 2026-27 admissions, allowing approved institutions to proceed.
Gauhati High Court rules that freezing an entire bank account under cyber fraud allegations without individualized scrutiny violates fundamental rights. While upholding investigative needs, the Court directed defreezing of the account, retaining only Rs. 2,22,500 as lien-a precedent for proportionality in financial investigations affecting livelihoods and business operations.
Kerala High Court rules that banks can reject educational loan applications under the IBA Model Scheme if the co-borrower has a low credit score, reinforcing compliance with banking regulations. The judgment underscores the legal validity of creditworthiness assessments in loan disbursements, impacting students and co-borrowers reliant on such schemes.
Madhya Pradesh High Court directs police to proactively protect interfaith couples from harassment, reaffirming the constitutional right to marry under Article 21. The ruling mandates immediate action against threats or violence, aligning with the Supreme Court's Lata Singh judgment.
Bombay High Court quashes an externment order under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, ruling that subjective satisfaction must be grounded in objective material. The judgment reinforces judicial review safeguards against arbitrary preventive detention, impacting individuals facing externment proceedings.
Kerala High Court reaffirms that Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services cannot be denied solely based on one spouse exceeding the prescribed age limit, extending the precedent in Union of India v. Devayani. The ruling reinforces reproductive rights as fundamental, mandating equal access to ART regardless of age thresholds.
Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that state authorities must consider representations for religious festival permissions without undue delay, balancing public order with constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 25. The court directed police to grant permission with necessary safeguards, reinforcing the duty to avoid arbitrary denial of religious freedoms.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that using externment orders under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act to silence peaceful political dissent by a registered party official violates fundamental rights to free speech and assembly. This sets a critical precedent: opposition to government policy, even when expressed through unapproved protests, cannot be equated with public disorder warranting forced displacement.
Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that seizure of a boat under APMMC Rules without following prescribed procedure infringes constitutional rights to equality, livelihood, and personal liberty. The court directed release of the boat on deposit of Rs. 1.5 lakh, reinforcing that environmental regulations must comply with fundamental rights and natural justice.
Karnataka High Court quashed a preventive detention order under the PITNDPS Act, 1988, ruling that an unexplained delay of over four months in considering the detenu's representation violates the constitutional mandate under Article 22(5). The judgment reinforces that procedural safeguards in preventive detention must be strictly adhered to, impacting detenu rights and state accountability.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that access to electricity is a fundamental right under Article 21, and authorities cannot deny connection to a lawful occupant solely due to lack of title deed. This sets a critical precedent for vulnerable residents-especially women and displaced persons-in securing basic utilities regardless of property ownership disputes.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that authorities must dispose of requests for public assembly permissions within two days, emphasizing that undue delays violate constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21. The judgment reinforces the state's obligation to facilitate, not obstruct, democratic dissent through timely administrative action.