• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • Post Articles
  • Devotion Cannot Be Subjected To Gender Discrimination, SC Allows Women Entry In Sabarimala By 4:1 Majority

Latest Articles

Back

Devotion Cannot Be Subjected To Gender Discrimination, SC Allows Women Entry In Sabarimala By 4:1 Majority

Courtesy/By: SANJEEV SIROHI  |  23 Oct 2018     Views:3796

It has to be exclaimed right at the start with considerable degree of satisfaction that in one of the most landmark judgment that Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has delivered since independence which has garnered not just national headlines but also international headlines, the Apex Court on September 28, 2018 in Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors v The State of Kerala & Ors in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 by a 4:1 majority in one of the most keenly awaited judgment has very laudably permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple, holding that ‘devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination’. It is one of the most progressive and path breaking judgment that we have witnessed in last many decades just like in the Shayara Bano case where Supreme Court not long time back had upheld triple talaq as unconstitutional! Very rightly so!

                                   Be it noted, the lone women in the Bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, dissented. Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice RF Nariman, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud constituted the majority. The Bench was delivering this landmark and laudable judgment in a 2006 PIL filed by Indian Young Lawyers Association challenging the centuries-old tradition of Sabrimala Temple banning entry of women of menstruating age inside the temple. Why do we forget that even in temples of Lord Hanuman who as per mythological beliefs was a bachelor yet no women of any age has ever been stopped from entering his temple and even Muslims and people from other religions are not barred from paying their respect to him if anyone of them so desire?

                                 At the very outset, this landmark  judgment written by the CJI Dipak Misra for himself and Justice AM Khanwilkar notes that, “The irony that is nurtured by the society is to impose a rule, however unjustified, and proffer explanation or justification to substantiate the substratum of the said rule. Mankind, since time immemorial, has been searching for explanation or justification to substantiate a point of view that hurts humanity. The theoretical human values remain on paper. Historically, women have been treated with inequality and that is why, many have fought for their rights. Susan B Anthony, known for her feminist activity, succinctly puts, “Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” It is a clear message.”

                               More importantly, para 2 then rightly touches the raw nerve by pointing out clearly and categorically that, “Neither the said message nor any kind of philosophy has opened up the large populace of this country to accept women as partners in their search for divinity and spirituality. In the theatre of life, it seems, man has put the autograph and there is no space for a woman even to put her signature. There is inequality on the path of approach to understand the divinity. The attribute of devotion to divinity cannot be subjected to the rigidity and stereotypes of gender. The dualism that persists in religion by glorifying and venerating women as goddesses on one hand and by imposing rigorous sanctions on the other hand in matters of devotion has to be abandoned. Such a dualistic approach and an entrenched mindset results in indignity to women and degradation of their status. The society has to undergo a perceptual shift from being the propagator of hegemonic patriarchal notions of demanding more exacting standards of purity and chastity solely from women to be the cultivator of equality where the woman is in no way considered frailer, lesser or inferior to man. The law and the society are bestowed with the Herculean task to act as levellers in this regard.”

            Continuing in the same vein, para 3 then minces no words in saying that, “Any relationship with the Creator is a transcendental one crossing all socially created artificial barriers and not a negotiated relationship bound by terms and conditions. Such a relationship and expression of devotion cannot be circumscribed by dogmatic notions of biological or physiological factors arising out of rigid socio-cultural attitudes which do not meet the constitutionally prescribed tests. Patriarchy in religion cannot be permitted to trump over the element of pure devotion borne out of faith and the freedom to practise and profess one’s religion. The subversion and repression of women under the garb of biological or physiological factors cannot be given the seal of legitimacy. Any rule based on discrimination or segregation of women pertaining to biological characteristics is not only unfounded, indefensible and implausible but can also never pass the muster of constitutionality.”

                                 Going forward, para 4 then enunciates that, “It is a universal truth that faith and religion do not countenance discrimination but religious practices are sometimes seen as perpetuating patriarchy thereby negating the basic tenets of faith and of gender equality and rights. The societal attitudes too centre and revolve around the patriarchal mindset thereby derogating the status of women in the social and religious milieu. All religions are simply different paths to reach the Universal One. Religion is basically a way of life to relaize one’s identity with the Divinity. However, certain dogmas and exclusionary practices and rituals have resulted in incongruities between the true essence of religion or faith and its practice that has come to be permeated with patriarchal prejudices. Sometimes, in the name of essential and integral facet of the faith, such practices are zealously propagated.”        

                                          It cannot be lost on us that para 5 then observes that, “Having stated so, we will focus on the factual score. The instant writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution seeks issuance of directions against the Government of Kerala, Devaswom Board of Travancore, Chief Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and the District Magistrate of Pathanamthitta to ensure entry of female devotees between the age group of 10 to 50 years to the Lord Ayyappa Temple at Sabarimala (Kerala) which has been denied to them on the basis of certain custom and usage; to declare Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 (for brevity, “the 1965 Act”) as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 51A(e) of the Constitution of India and further to pass directions for the safety of women pilgrims.”

                                     It would be pertinent to mention here that para 6 then illustrates that, “The three-Judge Bench in Indian Young Lawyers Association and others v. State of Kerala and others, (2017) 10 SCC 689, keeping in view the gravity of the issues involved, sought the assistance of Mr. Raju Ramachandran and Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, learned senior counsel as Amici Curiae. Thereafter, the three-Judge Bench analyzed the decision and the reasons ascribed by the Kerala High Court in S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram and others AIR 1993 Kerala 42 wherein similar contentions were raised. The Bench took note of the two affidavits dated 13.11.2007 and 05.02.2016 and the contrary stand taken therein by the Government of Kerala.” Para 9 says that, “It is also worthy to note here that the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, in S. Mahendran (supra), upheld the practice of banning entry of women belonging to the age group of 10 to 50 years in the Sabarimala temple during any time of the year.”

                                  Having said this, let us now turn to see what Para 95 enunciates. It says that, “Though, the respondents have urged that the pilgrims coming to visit the Sabarimala temple being devotees of Lord Ayyappa are addressed as Ayyappans and, therefore, the third condition for a religious denomination stands satisfied, is unacceptable. There is no identified group called Ayyappans. Every Hindu devotee can go to the temple. We have also been apprised that there are other temples for Lord Ayyappa and there is no such prohibition. Therefore, there is no identified sect. Accordingly, we hold, without any hesitation, that Sabarimala temple is a public religious endowment and there are no exclusive identified followers of the cult.”

                                       To put things in perspective, para 96 then stipulates that, “Coming to the first and the most important condition for a religious denomination, i.e., the collection of individuals ought to have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, there is nothing on record to show that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa have any common religious tenets peculiar to themselves, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, other than those which are common to the Hindu religion. Therefore, the devotees of Lord Ayyappa are just Hindus and do not constitute a separate religious denomination. For a religious denomination, there must be new methodology provided for a religion. Mere observance of certain practices, even though from a long time does not make it a distinct religion on that account.”

                                      It is then brought out in para 97 that, “Having stated that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a religious denomination within the meaning of Article 26 and that Sabarimala Temple is a public temple by virtue of the fact that Section 15 of the 1950 Act vests all powers of direction, control and supervision over it in the Travancore Devaswom Board which, in our foregoing analysis, has been unveiled as ‘other authority’ within the meaning of Article 12, resultantly fundamental rights including those guaranteed under Article 25(1) are enforceable against the Travancore Devaswom Board and other incorporated Devaswoms including the Sabarimala Temple.”

                                    Now coming to para 100, it clearly and categorically says that. “The right guaranteed under Article 25(1) has nothing to do with gender or, for that matter, certain physiological factors, specifically attributable to women. Women of any age group have as much a right as men to visit and enter a temple in order to freely practise a religion as guaranteed under Article 25(1). When we say so, we are absolutely alive to the fact that whether any such proposed exclusion of women from entry into religious places form an essential part of a religion would be examined at a subsequent stage.”

                                    As it turned out, para 101 then spares no punches in explicitly stating that, “We have no hesitation to say that such an exclusionary practice violates the right of women to visit and enter  a temple to freely practice Hindu religion and to exhibit devotion towards Lord Ayyappa. The denial of this right to women significantly denudes them of their right to worship. We concur with the view of the Amicus Curiae, learned senior counsel, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, that the right guaranteed under Article 25(1) is not only about inter-faith parity but it is also about intra-faith parity. Therefore, the right to practise religion under Article 25(1) in its broad contour, encompasses a non-discriminatory right which is equally available to both men and women of all age groups professing the same religion.”

                      Simply put, para 104 then elucidates that, “Therefore, it can be said without any hesitation or reservation that the impugned Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, framed in pursuance of the 1965 Act, that stipulates exclusion of entry of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years, is a clear violation of the right of such women to practice their religious belief which, in consequence, makes their fundamental right under Article 25(1) a dead letter. It is clear as crystal that as long as the devotees, irrespective of their gender and/or age group, seeking entry to a temple of any caste are Hindus, it is their legal right to enter into a temple and offer prayers. The women, in the case at hand, are also Hindus and so, there is neither any viable nor any legal limitation on their right to enter into the Sabarimala Temple as devotees of Lord Ayyappa and offer their prayers to the deity.”

                                      It was also clarified in para 105 that, “When we say so, we may also make it clear that the said rule of exclusion cannot be justified on the ground that allowing entry to women of the said age group would, in any way, be harmful or would play a jeopardizing role to public order, morality, health or, for that matter, any other provision/s of Part III of the Constitution, for it is to these precepts that the right guaranteed under Article 25(1) has been made subject to.”

                                 Needless to say, it is then underscored in para 110 that, “The right guaranteed under Article 25(1) has been made subject to, by the opening words of the Article itself, public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. All the three words, that is order, morality and health are qualified by the word ‘public’. Neither public order nor public health will be at peril by allowing entry of women devotees of the age group of 10 to 50 years into the Sabarimala temple for offering their prayers. As regards public morality, we must make it absolutely clear that since the Constitution was not shoved, by any external force, upon the people of this country but was rather adopted and given by the people of this country to themselves, the term public morality has to be appositely understood as being synonymous with constitutional morality.” Para 111 then seeks to make it clear that, “Having said so, the notions of public order, morality and health cannot be used as colourable device to restrict the freedom to freely practise religion and discriminate against women of the age group of 10 to 50 years by denying them their legal right to enter and offer their prayers at the Sabarimala temple for the simple reason that public morality must yield to constitutional morality.”

                          Conclusion

                              In a nutshell, it is then observed in para 144 that, “In view of our aforesaid analysis, we record our conclusions in seriatim:

(i)             In view of the law laid down by this Court in Shirur Mutt (supra) and S.P. Mittal (supra), the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination. They do not have common religious tenets peculiar to themselves, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, other than those which are common to the Hindu religion. Therefore, the devotees of Lord Ayyappa are exclusively Hindus and do not constitute a separate religious denomination.

(ii)          Article 25(1), by employing the expression ‘all persons’, demonstrates that the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion is available, though subject to the restrictions delineated in Article 25(1) itself, to every person including women. The right guaranteed under Article 25(1) has nothing to do with gender or, for that matter, certain physiological factors specifically attributable to women.

(iii)       The exclusionary practice being followed at the Sabrimala temple by virtue of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules violates the right of Hindu women to freely practise their religion and exhibit their devotion towards Lord Ayyappa. This denial denudes them of their right to worship. The right to practise religion under Article 25(1) is equally available to both men and women of all age groups professing the same religion.

(iv)       The impugned Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, framed under the 1965 Act, that stipulates exclusion of entry of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years, is a clear violation of the right of Hindu women to practise their religious beliefs which, in consequence, makes their fundamental right of religion under Article 25(1) a dead letter.

(v)          The term ‘morality’ occurring in Article 25(1) of the Constitution cannot be viewed with a narrow lens so as to confine the sphere of definition of morality to what an individual, a section or religious sect may perceive the term to mean. Since the Constitution has been adopted and given by the people of this country to themselves, the term public morality in Article 25 has to be appositely understood as being synonymous with constitutional morality.     

(vi)       The notions of public order, morality and health cannot be used as colourable device to restrict the freedom to freely practise religion and discriminate against women of the age group of 10 to 50 years by denying them their legal right to enter and offer their prayers at the Sabarimala temple.

(vii)    The practice of exclusion of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years being followed at the Sabarimala Temple cannot be regarded as an essential part as claimed by the respondent Board.

(viii)  In view of the law laid down by this Court in the second Ananda Marga case, the exclusionary practice being followed at the Sabarimala Temple cannot be designated as one, the non-observance of which will change or alter the nature of Hindu religion. Besides, the exclusionary practice has not been observed with unhindered continuity as the Devaswom Board had accepted before the High Court that female worshippers of the age group of 10 to 50 years used to visit the temple and conducted poojas in every month for five days for the first rice feeding ceremony of their children.

(ix)       The exclusionary practice, which has been given the backing of a subordinate legislation in the form of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, framed by the virtue of the 1965 Act, is neither an essential nor an integral part of the religion.

(x)          A careful reading of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules makes it luculent that it is ultra vires both Section 3 as well as Section 4 of the 1965 Act, for the simple pure reason that Section 3 being a non-obstante provision clearly stipulates that every place of public worship shall be open to all classes and sections of Hindus, women being one of them, irrespective of any custom or usage to the contrary.

(xi)       Rule 3(b) is also ultra vires Section 4 of the 1965 Act as the proviso to Section 4(1) creates an exception to the effect that the regulations/rules made under Section 4(1) shall not discriminate, in any manner whatsoever, against any Hindu on the ground that he/she belongs to a particular section or class.

(xii)    The language of both the provisions, that is, Section 3 and the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 1965 Act clearly indicate that custom and usage must make space to the rights of all sections and classes of Hindus to offer prayers at places of public worship. Any interpretation to the contrary would annihilate the purpose of the 1965 Act and incrementally impair the fundamental right to practise religion guaranteed under Article 25(1). Therefore, we hold that Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires of the 1965 Act.”

                                         As things stand, Justice RF Nariman in his separate but concurring judgment too strongly backed the majority judgment that Sabarimala custom must yield to fundamental right of women to worship. He also rightly pointed out that although the rights claimed by the Thantri and the believers in the custom of the temple have protection under Article 25(1), the right of a woman believer is also protected under Article 25(1), and her right should prevail over the right to maintain the exclusionary custom.  

                                              Interestingly enough, Justice RF Nariman while concluding in para 32 notes that, “I, therefore, concur in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice of India in allowing the writ petition, and declare that the custom or usage of prohibiting women between the ages of 10 to 50 years from entering the Sabarimala temple is violative of Article 25(1), and violative of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 made under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. Further, it is also declared that Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 is unconstitutional being violative of Article 25(1) and Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India.”

                                            It is notable that another eminent Judge Dr DY Chandrachud also concurred with the majority judgment. He held in para 119 that, “I hold and declare that:

1)  The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not satisfy the judicially enunciated requirements to constitute a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution;

2)  A claim for the exclusion of women from religious worship, even if it be founded in religious text, is subordinate to the constitutional values of liberty, dignity and equality. Exclusionary practices are contrary to constitutional morality;

3) In any event, the practice of excluding women from the temple at Sabarimala is not an essential religious practice. The Court must decline to grant constitutional legitimacy to practices which derogate from the dignity of women and to their entitlement to an equal citizenship;

4) The social exclusion of women, based on menstrual status is a form of untouchability which is an anathema to constitutional values. Notions of “purity and pollution”, which stigmatize individuals, have no place in a constitutional order;

5) The notifications dated 21 October 1955 and 27 November 1956 issued by the Devaswom Board, prohibiting the entry of women between the ages of ten and fifty, are ultra vires Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965 and are even otherwise unconstitutional; and

6) Hindu women constitute a ‘section of class’ of Hindus under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 2 of the 1965 Act. Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules enforce a custom contrary to Section 3 of the 1965 Act. This directly offends the right of temple entry established by Section 3. Rule 3(b) is ultra vires the 1965 Act.

                            Before concluding, it must be brought out that there was only one dissenting Judge – Indu Malhotra. Ironically, she was the only women Judge in the five-Judge Bench who delivered this landmark judgment. She summarized her analysis as follows in para 16:

1.  The Writ Petition does not deserve to be entertained for want of standing. The grievances raised are non-justiciable at the behest of the Petitioners and Intervenors involved herein.

2.  The equality doctrine enshrined under Article 14 does not override the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 25 to every individual to freely profess, practise and propagate their faith, in accordance with the tenets of their religion.

3.  Constitutional Morality in a secular polity would imply the harmonisation of the Fundamental Rights, which include the right of every individual, religious denomination, or sect, to practise their faith and belief in accordance with the tenets of their religion, irrespective of whether the practise is rational or logical.

4.  The Respondents and the Intervenors have made out a plausible case that the Ayyappans or worshippers of the Sabarimala Temple satisfy the requirements of being a religious denomination, or sect thereof, which is entitled to the protection provided by Article 26. This is a mixed question of fact and law which ought to be decided before a competent court of civil jurisdiction.

5.  The limited restriction on the entry of women during the notified age group does not fall within the purview of Article 17 of the Constitution.

6.  Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is not ultra vires Section 3 of the 1965 Act, since the proviso carves out an exception in the case of public worship in a temple for the benefit of any religious denomination or sect thereof, to manage their affairs in matters of religion.                     

                                          All said and done, it is one of the most landmark, laudable and progressive judgment that I have ever read in recent times. This alone explains why most of the Judges barring Justice Indu Malhotra have been all unanimous in deciding that women aged between age group of 10 to 50 years should not be barred from entering Sabarimala temple in any way and are fully entitled to go there. No politics should be done over it but politicians love to dabble in everything and support this worst discrimination against women even while talking about providing women equality in all spheres! This landmark judgment must be implemented in letter and spirit and all devotees and politicians must appreciate that they have to respect this final judgment delivered by the highest court of our country which is the Supreme Court and should refrain from stopping the interested women devotees from having a darshan of the holy Sabarimala shrine! Those who feel aggrieved by this judgment have every right to go for review petition but no one has the right to take law in their hands and stop women from entering the holy shrine as permission has been granted to them by the top court of India that is the Supreme Court! 


Courtesy/By: SANJEEV SIROHI  |  23 Oct 2018     Views:3796

Articles Updates

Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:606
Post-Merger Vision: HDFC Bank to Prioritize Profit...
01 Aug 2024     Views:702
Budget 2024-25: Major Takeaways and Financial Proj...
01 Aug 2024     Views:883
Budget 2024-25: Major Takeaways and Financial Proj...
01 Aug 2024     Views:797
The Mandal Verdict: Indra Sawhney and Its Lasting ...
22 Jul 2024     Views:983
Supreme Court Emphasizes Direct and a Specific Ple...
22 Jul 2024     Views:824
Bail and Punishment Provisions of NDPS matters...
05 Apr 2023     Views:4231
The Legal Depth of Cryptocurrency....
14 May 2022     Views:5073
Have You Suffered Harm Due to a Cochlear Implant?...
13 May 2022     Views:5300
When is a Deposition Summary used?...
13 May 2022     Views:5372
Denied! 8 Most Common Reasons for Green Card Denia...
25 Feb 2022     Views:5522
International customary law – a study of the Ang...
20 Feb 2022     Views:9924
How to Have an Essay Written for Free?...
10 Feb 2022     Views:4978
How to maximise a law firm’s success with a virt...
28 Dec 2021     Views:5278
Helpful Math Website for Students - AssignMaths.co...
26 Nov 2021     Views:5693
The Upcoming Municipal Nominee Program of Canada...
29 Oct 2021     Views:5519
Assault with a Weapon: How To Get Your Charges Dro...
28 Oct 2021     Views:2834
Law School Personal Statement Tips for Winning Adm...
12 Oct 2021     Views:2467
Can an Employee on Maternity Leave be Terminated?...
05 Oct 2021     Views:2033
OLD STATUTES MAKING A COMEBACK AMID VIRUS OUTBREAK...
04 May 2020     Views:4932
ARTICLE 141: DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT...
04 May 2020     Views:21305
Presumptions in Evidence Law...
04 May 2020     Views:8163
Unique use of Technology during covid-19 pandemic...
30 Apr 2020     Views:4550
45 days interim bail granted to under- trial priso...
29 Apr 2020     Views:4084
DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE...
27 Apr 2020     Views:8774
Rights of the LGBTQI community- a long road ahead....
26 Apr 2020     Views:3888
Measures to protect women against domestic violenc...
26 Apr 2020     Views:3703
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)...
25 Apr 2020     Views:4745
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertificatio...
24 Apr 2020     Views:3513
Increase in Cyberbullying during COVID-19...
24 Apr 2020     Views:1841
DOCTRINE OF COLOURABLE LEGISLATIONS...
24 Apr 2020     Views:2625
Doctrine of lifting of corporate veil...
23 Apr 2020     Views:2180
Meaning of Legal Pluralism...
23 Apr 2020     Views:1846
Once a mortgage, always a mortgage...
23 Apr 2020     Views:56071
Euthanasia- Meaning and Legality in India...
23 Apr 2020     Views:1756
Judicial activism and Judicial restraint...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1895
Concept of Insider Trading under Investment Law...
22 Apr 2020     Views:2091
Need for Legal Awareness...
22 Apr 2020     Views:2041
Is Extradition a Legal Duty of State? ...
22 Apr 2020     Views:6279
The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Traff...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1537
Why Dependence On Criminal Law Is Not The Solution...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1555
Uniform Civil code...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1640
VETO POWER AND DOUBLE VETO POWER ...
20 Apr 2020     Views:30827
ABETMENT UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE...
20 Apr 2020     Views:6318
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 197...
20 Apr 2020     Views:3153
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL - CRITICAL ANALYSIS...
20 Apr 2020     Views:5898
LAWS AGAINST ACID ATTACK IN INDIA...
20 Apr 2020     Views:10719
Concept of conciliation...
19 Apr 2020     Views:3334
White collar crimes in India...
19 Apr 2020     Views:2712
No Law To Make Whatsapp Group Admins Liable For Me...
19 Apr 2020     Views:7704
Relationship between International Law and Municip...
18 Apr 2020     Views:54736
International Labour Organization (ILO)...
18 Apr 2020     Views:1830
How is the Law arena affected by COVID-19?...
18 Apr 2020     Views:1437
Motor Vehicle Insurance Law...
18 Apr 2020     Views:1718
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) AND ITS IMPO...
18 Apr 2020     Views:1828
ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS OF THE LOCKDOWN MUST BE PRESER...
18 Apr 2020     Views:1663
Difference between Kidnapping and Abduction...
17 Apr 2020     Views:3397
JUSTIFYING SC ORDER THAT MANDATES FREE COVID-19 TE...
17 Apr 2020     Views:1432
Evolution of the Nature and Scope of Article 12 of...
16 Apr 2020     Views:6303
Corruption laws in India ...
16 Apr 2020     Views:1812
ADVERTISING LAWS IN INDIA...
16 Apr 2020     Views:2092
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons...
15 Apr 2020     Views:1787
Business Laws in India...
15 Apr 2020     Views:3378
The Process of Passing an Ordinary Bill in the Par...
14 Apr 2020     Views:12387
International Committee of the Red Cross...
14 Apr 2020     Views:1694
National Company Law Tribunal...
14 Apr 2020     Views:1791
FOOD ADULTERATION...
13 Apr 2020     Views:3243
The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juv...
13 Apr 2020     Views:4524
Environmental Protection Act, 1986...
12 Apr 2020     Views:2368
IMPORTANCE OF PRECEDENTS ...
12 Apr 2020     Views:10655
MoHFW and ICMR hold a conflicting statement over C...
11 Apr 2020     Views:1503
Introduction to Income Tax Act, 1961...
11 Apr 2020     Views:6293
DEMOCRACY IN INDIA...
10 Apr 2020     Views:2300
United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS)...
10 Apr 2020     Views:2325
An Overview of Juvenile Delinquency and the Juveni...
09 Apr 2020     Views:2641
How is Absolute Liability different from Strict Li...
09 Apr 2020     Views:26037
International Armed Conflict (IAC) and Non-Interna...
09 Apr 2020     Views:4763
The Concept of Bonded Labour under the Legal Syste...
09 Apr 2020     Views:1701
Why Indian Constitution is called Quasi-federal?...
08 Apr 2020     Views:33322
What should be given primary importance, Human Rig...
08 Apr 2020     Views:1699
Karl Marx: Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood ...
08 Apr 2020     Views:6509
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Disc...
07 Apr 2020     Views:1730
Legal Rights of Students in India...
07 Apr 2020     Views:3764
International Covenant on Civil and Political...
06 Apr 2020     Views:1643
Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India)...
06 Apr 2020     Views:2846
The Hart-Fuller debate in a Nutshell ...
06 Apr 2020     Views:19544
Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Cri...
06 Apr 2020     Views:1579
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child...
06 Apr 2020     Views:1569
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY DURING THE HEALTH CRI...
06 Apr 2020     Views:1478
Traditional Knowledge : The Convention on Biologic...
06 Apr 2020     Views:1846
Bailment...
05 Apr 2020     Views:2221
Monopolistic nature of Copyright Societies in Indi...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1890
Marital Rape...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1425
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1382
Manual Scavenging ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1322
How serious can Online Abuse be?...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1394
Cognizable and non cognizable offences...
05 Apr 2020     Views:6975
Legal Aid In India ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1743
Basic Structure Doctrine...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1592
Medical Negligence...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1329
Consumer Protection Act, 2019...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1618
Legality of Cryptocurrency in India...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1829
Intimate Partner Violence...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1474
CENTRE USES THE PRETENCE OF ‘FAKE NEWS’ TO SUP...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1332
International Humanitarian Law...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1389
What rights do a disabled person in India have? ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1761
Universal Declaration of Human Rights...
03 Apr 2020     Views:1676
What is the National Security Act being slapped on...
03 Apr 2020     Views:1381
False News- another epidemic?...
02 Apr 2020     Views:1524
Commercial laws in India a Bird's-eye view...
02 Apr 2020     Views:8928
All About Suo Moto Proceedings...
02 Apr 2020     Views:1802
Intellectual Property Rights...
02 Apr 2020     Views:1511
Alternate Dispute Resolution...
02 Apr 2020     Views:1492
Types of E-commerce Models ...
02 Apr 2020     Views:1485
'Intermeddler' as a Legal Representative under the...
01 Apr 2020     Views:9835
Right to health- A fundamental right...
31 Mar 2020     Views:1548
What is a Green Bond? ...
31 Mar 2020     Views:1436
Defamation...
31 Mar 2020     Views:1407
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NATIONAL LOCKDOWN...
30 Mar 2020     Views:1608
Positive and Negative Impacts of the US-China Trad...
29 Mar 2020     Views:3261
Public Heath(Covid-19) Rules, 2020...
29 Mar 2020     Views:1329
Opinion | Migration and the Mockery of Lockdown- I...
29 Mar 2020     Views:1365
Female Genital Mutilation- Violation of Human Righ...
29 Mar 2020     Views:1717
Supreme Court’s judgement on Shreya Singhal v. U...
29 Mar 2020     Views:2410
International Court of Justice...
28 Mar 2020     Views:1774
Feminist Jurisprudence...
27 Mar 2020     Views:1918
IP Protection and Diffusion of Environmentally Sou...
27 Mar 2020     Views:2056
Covid-19 fostered Racism ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1487
Mercy Petition: The Process ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:2703
WTO Work Programme on E-Commerce ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1589
Comparison between Section 144 of CrPC, lockdown a...
26 Mar 2020     Views:2119
Prison reforms...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1429
How far has the LGBTQI community come?...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1664
Public Interest Litigation...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1677
The Right to information Act- Still a right or not...
25 Mar 2020     Views:1675
Legalization of Marijuana...
25 Mar 2020     Views:1528
Significance of AB PM-JAY in the light of COVID-19...
25 Mar 2020     Views:1405
The History of Magna Carta...
25 Mar 2020     Views:2674
Introduction to Child Rights in India...
25 Mar 2020     Views:6123
CENTRE CANNOT DECLARE AN ORGANISATION POLITICAL: ...
06 Mar 2020     Views:3918
A DECISION MADE BY SC ON AYODHYA VERDICT...
29 Jan 2020     Views:1886
RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER IN INDIA...
29 Jan 2020     Views:2114
MARITAL RAPE - A NON CRIMINALIZED CRIME IN INDIA...
24 Jan 2020     Views:2142
MISCONCEPTION ABOUT CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT ...
22 Jan 2020     Views:2057
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE...
21 Jan 2020     Views:2133
Hyderabad Encounter- Human Rights Violation or Jus...
18 Jan 2020     Views:2644
NOTE ON NIRBHAY CASE CONVICTS...
17 Jan 2020     Views:2053
NOTE ON ARTICLE 370...
17 Jan 2020     Views:2007
Rape and Indian laws ...
13 Jan 2020     Views:2636
An overview on Drugs Law...
13 Jan 2020     Views:2208
Mob Lynching: Role of Politics and approach of Jud...
08 Jan 2020     Views:5062
Trademarks: Spectrum of Distinctiveness and Indian...
06 Jan 2020     Views:5834
Women Prisoners ...
23 Dec 2019     Views:2228
Child Care Institutions and its Judicial Interpret...
23 Dec 2019     Views:2326
Smart Contracts and Their Relevance in The Legal P...
19 Dec 2019     Views:1962
Government Vs Opposition on the Citizenship Amendm...
12 Dec 2019     Views:2277
Condition Of Lady Advocates Vulnerable: Lawyer App...
11 Dec 2019     Views:2794
Montesquieu’s Theory of Separation of Powers: Ho...
10 Dec 2019     Views:35357
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND JUDICIAL OVER-REACH: TRANSITIO...
10 Dec 2019     Views:4105
Due Process Of Law For Rapists Must Speed Up Now...
10 Dec 2019     Views:1902
Human Rights Of Women Must Also Be Respected...
09 Dec 2019     Views:1921
Speedy Capital Punishment For Rapists Must Be Ensu...
08 Dec 2019     Views:1979
Why Only One Dhananjoy Chatterjee Hanged Till Now?...
07 Dec 2019     Views:2559
Why No Death Penalty For Gang Rape In India?...
07 Dec 2019     Views:1664
Rape Convicts Must Be Hanged At The Earliest From ...
05 Dec 2019     Views:1688
No Mercy Petition And No Life Term Ever For Gang R...
02 Dec 2019     Views:1994
Section 207 CrPC: Magistrate Cannot Withhold Any D...
02 Dec 2019     Views:3378
UP Bar Council Chairman Harishankar Singh Openly C...
17 Nov 2019     Views:2243
AN UNDERSTANDING OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ART 3...
13 Nov 2019     Views:4017
COOKING UP A LEGALLY PROTECTED MEAL: A study on IP...
13 Nov 2019     Views:2058
Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde To Be The New CJI From...
31 Oct 2019     Views:2319
UK Supreme Court Declares Prorogation Of Parliamen...
29 Sep 2019     Views:1751
Right To Access Internet Is Part Of Right To Priva...
23 Sep 2019     Views:1776
No Attempt Made To Frame Uniform Civil Code Despit...
19 Sep 2019     Views:1704
A Legal Giant Named Ram Jethmalani Finally Passes ...
09 Sep 2019     Views:1582
Judicial Service – HC Can’t Modify/Relax Instr...
02 Sep 2019     Views:1371
Government Notifies Strict Provisions Of Motor Veh...
31 Aug 2019     Views:1488
NDPS: Reverse Burden Of Proof Does Not Absolve Pro...
30 Aug 2019     Views:2349
Institutional Independence, Financial Autonomy Int...
28 Aug 2019     Views:1413
A Legal Luminary And A Political Stalwart Passes A...
25 Aug 2019     Views:1649
Allahabad HC Bans DJs And Passes Directions For Re...
24 Aug 2019     Views:1390
Delhi HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail To P Chidambara...
23 Aug 2019     Views:1602
Chidambaram Getting No Respite From Courts...
23 Aug 2019     Views:1328
Domestic Violence And Dowry Accused Set Free By Th...
22 Aug 2019     Views:4700
Bombsy HC: Treat every citizen with dignity...
20 Aug 2019     Views:4889
Integration Of J&K With India Is Now Full And Fina...
20 Aug 2019     Views:2420
Second Appeal Not To Be Dismissed Merely On The Gr...
18 Aug 2019     Views:1501
Judge Can Recuse From A Case At His Own Volition, ...
17 Aug 2019     Views:1593
Don't politicize demolition of temples: SC...
16 Aug 2019     Views:4960
Madras Christian College - female students sexuall...
16 Aug 2019     Views:4573
Charged for employing triple talaq...
16 Aug 2019     Views:2322
Earlier Convicted now Acquitted - Lack of Conclusi...
15 Aug 2019     Views:2269
MACAD Scheme to be enforced in Tamil Nadu - 1st Oc...
15 Aug 2019     Views:2189
Filing Of Criminal Complaint For Settling Civil Di...
15 Aug 2019     Views:1631
End Discrimination: Equalize legal age of Marriage...
14 Aug 2019     Views:1480
Madras HC issues directions upon Officers to check...
14 Aug 2019     Views:2009
BOMBAY HC to Civic Bodies: "Own up to your respons...
14 Aug 2019     Views:1512
Infringement of Registered TM "Vistara" - Threat t...
13 Aug 2019     Views:2066
US Citizen approaches Bombay High Court After Bein...
13 Aug 2019     Views:1702
Normalcy need not be restored in J&K instantly : S...
13 Aug 2019     Views:1612
Prohibitory Steps taken against Students for Consu...
13 Aug 2019     Views:1604
Basic Amenities to Traffic Personnel ...
12 Aug 2019     Views:1445
Madras HC upholds the appointment notification of ...
12 Aug 2019     Views:1535
Plea against E-pharmacies struck down by Bombay HC...
12 Aug 2019     Views:1540
Parliament Rightly Makes Triple Talaq Criminal But...
12 Aug 2019     Views:1516
No Tax Deduction from Motor Accident Compensation ...
11 Aug 2019     Views:1627
Delhi HC: Plant 50 Trees, Quash Criminal Proceedin...
11 Aug 2019     Views:1472
Iyal Isai Nataka Mandram should abide by the time ...
11 Aug 2019     Views:1711
Transitory Committee to be formed for Indian Arche...
11 Aug 2019     Views:1498
Outlawing Of Triple Talaq Is Highly Commendable...
11 Aug 2019     Views:1480
Daring Resolve Taken By Centre On Jammu And Kashmi...
10 Aug 2019     Views:1419
M Kavitha’s suspension to be reviewed...
09 Aug 2019     Views:2139
SC: Adverse Possession owing to Title over Propert...
09 Aug 2019     Views:1570
Regulation of Online streaming contents out of the...
09 Aug 2019     Views:1497
Constitution Cannot Be Above Country Come What May...
09 Aug 2019     Views:1518
Ocean waves to be our new energy source...
08 Aug 2019     Views:1916
Delhi HC: Simple language to be incorporated in FI...
08 Aug 2019     Views:1832
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ASKED THE GOVERNMENT T...
08 Aug 2019     Views:1371
Victim Has A Right To Assist The Court In A Trial ...
08 Aug 2019     Views:2970
Study of Lakes to be Conducted by NEERI...
07 Aug 2019     Views:1774
SC Denies Permission to Conduct DNA Tests...
07 Aug 2019     Views:1679
Whatsapp's fight against interference with User-Pr...
07 Aug 2019     Views:1496
Evidence Of A Solitary Witness In A Criminal Trial...
07 Aug 2019     Views:1545
High Court of Karnataka set aside the retirement o...
07 Aug 2019     Views:1734
Study of Lakes to be Conducted by NEERI...
06 Aug 2019     Views:1649
History-sheeter kidnaps and rapes a College Studen...
06 Aug 2019     Views:1710
No Room For Sympathy While Sentencing Terror Convi...
06 Aug 2019     Views:1670
Rejected Plea: Declaration of Vande Mataram as Nat...
05 Aug 2019     Views:1903
Madras HC corrects the computation error of Motor ...
05 Aug 2019     Views:1481
Fundamental Right To Privacy Not Absolute And Must...
05 Aug 2019     Views:1695
Diocese of Tanjore Society School gets relief from...
04 Aug 2019     Views:1679
THE TEMPLES IN KARNATAKA NO MORE BE GOVERNED UNDER...
03 Aug 2019     Views:1757
Triple Talaq legislation is challenged in the Delh...
03 Aug 2019     Views:1472
Special Olympics International Football Championsh...
03 Aug 2019     Views:1390
Concession to be given to disabled persons appeari...
03 Aug 2019     Views:2043
Bombay High Court Hears Dowry Case Involving A Civ...
03 Aug 2019     Views:1790
Karnataka High Court on the condition of Roads...
02 Aug 2019     Views:2038
SC ORDERS DEATH PENALTY IN COIMBATORE GANG-RAPE CA...
02 Aug 2019     Views:1584
RBI Changes Features Of New Currency Notes. Bombay...
02 Aug 2019     Views:1433
Interest Of Victim And Society At Large Must Also ...
02 Aug 2019     Views:1469
Abolition of Colonial Decorum in Courts...
01 Aug 2019     Views:5728
Punjab & Haryana HC Bans Use Of Loudspeakers Witho...
31 Jul 2019     Views:2280
ICJ Has Rightly Called Pakistan’s Bluff In Jadha...
26 Jul 2019     Views:1493
Review And Reconsider Conviction And Sentencing Of...
22 Jul 2019     Views:1534
Plaintiff Cannot Be Forced To Add Parties Against ...
21 Jul 2019     Views:1727
Biggest Slap By ICJ Directly Right On The Face Of ...
19 Jul 2019     Views:1451
Delhi HC Imposes Rs. 50,000 Cost On Woman For Fals...
17 Jul 2019     Views:1478
Non-Appointment Of Judges Affects Speedy Justice: ...
16 Jul 2019     Views:1401
Right To Get Anticipatory Bail Is Not Any Fundamen...
14 Jul 2019     Views:1764
Plea For Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable Before...
13 Jul 2019     Views:1927
Divorce Cannot Be Granted Only On Ground Of Irretr...
11 Jul 2019     Views:1428
Right To Shelter A Fundamental Right; State Has Co...
08 Jul 2019     Views:1522
HC Cannot Reverse Acquittal Without Affording Oppo...
06 Jul 2019     Views:1301
Centre Is Legally Empowered To Create A High Court...
05 Jul 2019     Views:1996
Centre Must Now Immediately Order Creation Of HC B...
03 Jul 2019     Views:1367
UAPA: SC Dismisses PFI Leader’s Plea Seeking Dis...
02 Jul 2019     Views:1557
How To Record The Evidence Of Deaf And Dumb Rape V...
01 Jul 2019     Views:2396
Ban Advocates From Carrying Weapons Inside Court P...
26 Jun 2019     Views:2700
Enact Strict Law To Ensure Personal Safety Of Doct...
26 Jun 2019     Views:2697
Mere Aggressive Behaviour Of Wife Not A Ground Of ...
26 Jun 2019     Views:2829
Court Cannot Destroy Faith & Beliefs Of People: Ma...
07 Jun 2019     Views:1337
Insult Of Soldier In Name Of Law Is Most Disgracef...
07 Jun 2019     Views:1650
Courts Cannot Decide Eligibility And Essential Qua...
20 May 2019     Views:4850
SC Upholds Constitutionality Of Section 23 Of PCPN...
20 May 2019     Views:2697
My Unflinching Faith In CJI Stands Fully Vindicate...
20 May 2019     Views:1858
Solitary Confinement Of Death Convict Prior To Rej...
20 May 2019     Views:2193
Section 498A & 306 IPC: Incidents Which Happened M...
20 May 2019     Views:5692
Why Should UP Have Least High Court Benches In Ind...
20 May 2019     Views:1630
Successive Bail Applications Should Be Placed Befo...
20 May 2019     Views:8920
“Drop This Episode From Your Minds And Gossips...
20 May 2019     Views:1504
Is The Criticism Of In-House Procedure Justified?...
20 May 2019     Views:1718
Mere Pendency Of Civil Case Between Complainant An...
20 May 2019     Views:1430
Section 482 CrPC: HC Should Assign Reasons As To W...
20 May 2019     Views:3176
Delhi High Court Directs Government To Set Up 18 F...
20 May 2019     Views:1519
No New Appointments To Be Made From In-Service Can...
18 May 2019     Views:1369
Only Advocates Can Plead And Argue On Behalf Of Li...
09 Apr 2019     Views:3499
Nations Must Make Gun Laws More Stricter...
04 Apr 2019     Views:4296
SC Designates 37 Lawyers As Senior Advocates...
04 Apr 2019     Views:6813
Adding Additional Accused: To Invoke Section 319 C...
04 Apr 2019     Views:6527
SC Sets Aside Life Ban Imposed On Cricketer Sreesa...
04 Apr 2019     Views:1777
P&H HC Directs Protection Of Honest Officers While...
04 Apr 2019     Views:1568
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Impri...
19 Mar 2019     Views:2116
Islamabad High Court Rejects Plea Against Release ...
19 Mar 2019     Views:2281
Lawyers Resort To Seek Unnecessary Adjournments Am...
19 Mar 2019     Views:2362
Even Poem Can Help Save A Death Convict From Gallo...
19 Mar 2019     Views:2402
Educated Woman Supposed To Be Fully Aware Of Conse...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1415
Jammu and Kashmir HC Upholds PM’s Employment Pac...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1861
Magistrate Shall Specify Whether Sentences Awarded...
23 Feb 2019     Views:2567
Mere Inability To Repay Loan Does Not Constitute C...
23 Feb 2019     Views:3081
Inability To Establish Motive In A Case Of Circums...
23 Feb 2019     Views:2829
Punjab & Haryana HC Issues Slew Of Directions To C...
23 Feb 2019     Views:3123
Court Has to Confine Itself To The Four Corners Of...
23 Feb 2019     Views:1563
Long Pendency Amounts To A Special Reason For Impo...
23 Feb 2019     Views:1626
Successive Applications For Recalling Witnesses Sh...
23 Feb 2019     Views:3176
Lieutenant General (Rtd) Cannot Be Tried In A Gene...
06 Feb 2019     Views:2487
Autonomy Of the Bar Cannot Be Taken Over By The Co...
05 Feb 2019     Views:3187
Casual Act Of Possession Over Property Does Not Co...
04 Feb 2019     Views:2428
No Authority Can Claim Privilege Not To Comply Wit...
04 Feb 2019     Views:2668
Death Sentence Only When The Alternative Option Is...
04 Feb 2019     Views:2753
SC Imposes Rs 5 Crore Penalty On A Medical College...
28 Jan 2019     Views:2028
A Judicial Officer Is Not An Ordinary Government S...
25 Jan 2019     Views:2153
Rape And Murder Of 8 Year Old Girl: SC Commutes De...
23 Jan 2019     Views:2193
Mere Allegations Of Harassment Without Proximate P...
23 Jan 2019     Views:2816
Legal Article Why Should They Speak Lies: Decease...
23 Jan 2019     Views:1709
Can a Economic offender can escape by surrendering...
22 Jan 2019     Views:1584
NCW is a Lame Duck or Legal Guardian for women...
22 Jan 2019     Views:1482
Mutual Consent Divorce Procedure in Chennai Family...
21 Jan 2019     Views:6630
Quick Divorce in India...
21 Jan 2019     Views:1619
4 Important things to file Divorce in Chennai...
21 Jan 2019     Views:1786
How to get Divorce for Muslim Men ...
21 Jan 2019     Views:12017
Offences Under Section 307 IPC Can’t Be Quashed ...
17 Jan 2019     Views:3727
Suspicion, Howsoever Grave, Can’t Substitute Pro...
17 Jan 2019     Views:1566
Delhi HC Rejects AJL's Plea Against Centre's Order...
03 Jan 2019     Views:2558
1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Delhi HC Awards Life Term To...
03 Jan 2019     Views:2250
SC Dismisses Petitions Seeking Probe Into Rafale D...
20 Dec 2018     Views:2655
Executive Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To Regis...
20 Dec 2018     Views:3219
Why Lawyers Of West UP Are Compelled To Strike Fre...
20 Dec 2018     Views:1829
recheck...
19 Dec 2018     Views:2374
1984 Anti-Sikh Riots – Delhi HC Upholds Convicti...
12 Dec 2018     Views:1979
Why Lawless West UP Has No High Court Bench?...
11 Dec 2018     Views:2273
Bombay HC Quashes Government Resolution Making It ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:2394
SLP Against Death Sentence Shall Not Be Dismissed ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:2454
SC Allows Live-Streaming Of Public Proceedings In ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:2311
Sexual Offenders Registry For Law Enforcement Agen...
26 Nov 2018     Views:4340
Delhi HC Sentences 16 Policemen To Life Imprisonme...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1578
Men Too Have Right Not To Be Defamed And Denounced...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1698
Courts Have To Adequately Consider Defence Of The ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1551
CJI Ranjan Gogoi Demonstrates His Firm Resolve And...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1483
SC Issues Directions On Examination Of Witnesses I...
26 Nov 2018     Views:3076
Aadhaar Held Mandatory For Government Subsidies An...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1922
Legal Article Now Bar Council ID Card Is Valid Id...
01 Nov 2018     Views:2681
SC Sets Deadline On Sale Of BS-IV Vehicles; Says H...
01 Nov 2018     Views:2514
Devotion Cannot Be Subjected To Gender Discriminat...
23 Oct 2018     Views:3796
There Cannot Be Any Mechanical Denial Of Appointme...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2837
Rights Of Accused Far Outweigh That Of Victims, Ne...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1721
SC Strikes Down 158 Year Old Adultery Law Under Se...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2756
Extra-Judicial Confession Of Accused Need Not In A...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1959
Leaders Of Outfits Calling For Mob Violence Liable...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1731
Section 377 IPC Decriminalised Partially By Supre...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2235
New CJI Ranjan Gogoi Is Determined To Ensure Sweep...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2110
Court Must Not Go Deep Into The Matter While Consi...
26 Sep 2018     Views:2419
Reputation Of An Individual Is An Insegregable Fac...
26 Sep 2018     Views:3203
Sec. 498A IPC: Only HC Can Quash Cases On Settleme...
18 Sep 2018     Views:4128
Punjab & Haryana HC Orders Rape Convict, Mother To...
17 Sep 2018     Views:2489
Bombay HC Imposes Cost Of Rs 50K On Petitioner Fir...
17 Sep 2018     Views:1761
Uttarakhand HC Dismisses “Contempt Petition” A...
14 Sep 2018     Views:1829
SC Stresses On Need To Develop And Recognize ‘De...
08 Sep 2018     Views:1770
Mirchpur Dalit Killings: “Atrocities Against SCs...
08 Sep 2018     Views:1920
SC Upholds Pan India Reservation Rule in Delhi; Bu...
03 Sep 2018     Views:2229
NDPS Bail Conditions Discriminatory, Irrational An...
31 Aug 2018     Views:3084
People Without A Degree Performing Surgeries: Utta...
28 Aug 2018     Views:1840
Uttarakhand HC Issues Directions For Conserving ...
28 Aug 2018     Views:2325
12 Year Old Girl’s Rape And Murder: Constitute P...
28 Aug 2018     Views:2085
MP HC To Debar Members/Office Bearers Of Bar Counc...
22 Aug 2018     Views:1783
Special Squad, Police Patrolling Every 24 Hours To...
20 Aug 2018     Views:1921
NRC Being Prepared Under Supreme Court’s Watch I...
20 Aug 2018     Views:1929
Victims Of Crime Can Seek Cancellation Of Bail: MP...
20 Aug 2018     Views:2087
Delhi HC Strikes Down Provisions In Law That Crimi...
13 Aug 2018     Views:2138
Delhi HC Quashes Govt Notification Revising Minimu...
09 Aug 2018     Views:2090
Poorest Of Poor Cannot Go To Private Hospitals: Ut...
07 Aug 2018     Views:2410
How Long Will Lawyers Of West UP Just Keep Strikin...
04 Aug 2018     Views:2368
Courts Must See That The Public Doesn’t Lose Con...
04 Aug 2018     Views:1878
UK Tier 1 Entrepreneur Visa: Overview from Experts...
31 Jul 2018     Views:1970
Enact Law For Safety Of Soldiers Of Jammu And Kash...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1839
SC Advocates Creating A Special Law Against Lynchi...
23 Jul 2018     Views:3209
Matrimonial Discord Can’t Be Considered As Reaso...
23 Jul 2018     Views:3207
Uttarakhand HC Recommends Govt To Enact Legislatio...
23 Jul 2018     Views:3047
High Court Priests Cannot Refuse To Perform Religi...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2323
Uttarakhand High Court Passes String Of Directions...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1660
SC Finally Decides Master Of Roster Case...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1616
Stone Pelters And Terrorists Have No Right To Life...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2155
Remove Designations Like Police, HC, Journalist, A...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2119
Why Centre is Providing Security For Separatists B...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1904
Farmer Suicide Due To Bankruptcy Or Indebtedness: ...
05 Jul 2018     Views:4689
Every Indian Should Salute Brave Soldier Aurangzeb...
05 Jul 2018     Views:3312
Uttarakhand HC Issues Directions To Curb Drug Pedd...
05 Jul 2018     Views:2631
Have A Functional National Law University Within 3...
05 Jul 2018     Views:2228
Establish Regional Bench Of AFT In The State Withi...
05 Jul 2018     Views:1628
Cancel Licences of Drivers Using Cell Phones; Helm...
05 Jul 2018     Views:1516
Uttarakhand High Court Puts Restrictions On Noise ...
05 Jul 2018     Views:1680
Supreme Court To Look Into Validity Of Amended Law...
05 Jul 2018     Views:1503
Mysterious Deaths, Rapes, Malnutrition, Unsanitary...
29 Jun 2018     Views:2674
No Politics Please Over Plan To Assassinate PM Mod...
11 Jun 2018     Views:2077
Free Mentally Ill Children And Formulate Policies ...
11 Jun 2018     Views:2516
Landmark Ruling By Uttarakhand HC On Solitary Conf...
07 Jun 2018     Views:3105
Right Of Adult Couple To Live Together Without Mar...
06 Jun 2018     Views:2199
Why BJP Will Be Wiped Out In West UP And UP?...
06 Jun 2018     Views:2284
Why UP Has Just One High Court Bench And West UP N...
05 Jun 2018     Views:1813
Women Governed By Muslim Personal Law Can Invoke P...
04 Jun 2018     Views:1560
Why Is BJP Not Creating More Benches In UP?...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1721
Probation Period To Count For New Civil Servants B...
01 Jun 2018     Views:3493
SC Women Lawyers Association Seeks Chemical Castra...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1546
SC Finally Steps In To Expedite POCSO Cases...
01 Jun 2018     Views:2966
UP Former CMs Can’t Stay In Govt Bungalows: SC...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1495
Make BCCI A Public Body: Law Panel...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1842
Self-Styled Godman Asaram Awarded Life Until Death...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1737
Why Cases Withdrawn Against Stone Pelters In Kashm...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1901
A High Court Bench For West UP In Meerut Is Impera...
01 Jun 2018     Views:2086
People Of Karnataka Should Worship Congress...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1917
Delhi HC Upholds Life Term To Seven Policemen...
19 Mar 2018     Views:1631
Finance Act-2018 And Customs Act-1962 (Amendments)...
28 Feb 2018     Views:1755
Why No Death Or Life Term For Corruption?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:1548
Will Electoral Bonds Usher In Transparency?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:1508
How Long Will Lawyers Of West UP Keep Striking?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:1627
Finance Act 2018 and Customs Act 1962...
18 Feb 2018     Views:2097
Why Has Stone Pelting Been Legalised In Kashmir?...
12 Feb 2018     Views:1663
Shopian Firing: Major's Dad Moving SC For Quashing...
12 Feb 2018     Views:1577
Soldiers Have Every Legal Right To Kill Stone Pelt...
12 Feb 2018     Views:2959
Attack On Lawyers: Delhi HC Issues Notice To Delhi...
10 Feb 2018     Views:1551
Female Foeticide Must Be Punished Most Strictly...
10 Feb 2018     Views:1815
Soldiers Have Every Legal Right To Act In Self Def...
10 Feb 2018     Views:1553
New Consumer Protection Bill 2018 Will Entail More...
10 Feb 2018     Views:1583
CJI Brings Out A Roster To Allot Cases...
10 Feb 2018     Views:2121
Five Year Jail Term For Lalu In Third Fodder Scam ...
10 Feb 2018     Views:1649
SC Quashes All The 88 Mining Leases In Goa...
10 Feb 2018     Views:1692
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act -2002 (PMLA-20...
07 Feb 2018     Views:1702
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 Amended ...
04 Feb 2018     Views:2211
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act -2002 --U/S 45(...
03 Feb 2018     Views:2059
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 (P...
16 Jan 2018     Views:1750
humanity...
13 Jan 2018     Views:1516
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 PMLA...
13 Jan 2018     Views:1543
Right to Know...
05 Jan 2018     Views:2013
A STUDY OF CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS ON INCOME TAX RELATI...
29 Dec 2017     Views:2190
Enviornment protection is for saving universe...
28 Dec 2017     Views:1514
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND STATUS OF SECTION 377, IPC, 1...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1786
PROBLEMS WITHIN THE EXISTING POLICE SYSTEM...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1606
LEGALITY : LEGALITY OF MARITAL RAPE...
26 Dec 2017     Views:2538
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND DIRECTION FOR MANDATORY AADHA...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1726
THE PARADOX OF PLEA BARGAINING...
26 Dec 2017     Views:2517
JOURNEY OF EVMs AMIDST CONTROVERSIES ...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1627
UIDAI suspends Airtel, Airtel Payments and Banks e...
26 Dec 2017     Views:2117
2G Scam : The 2G Scam and much more...
26 Dec 2017     Views:2357
Kerala teen surveillance case: Invasion of Privacy...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1789
Motherhood or Employment- the judicial perspective...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1814

Most Read Articles

  • Once a mortgage, always a mortgage
    On 23 Apr 2020    Views:56071
  • Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law
    On 18 Apr 2020    Views:54736
  • Montesquieu’s Theory of Separation of Powers: How it has been adopted in India
    On 10 Dec 2019    Views:35357
  • Why Indian Constitution is called Quasi-federal?
    On 08 Apr 2020    Views:33322
  • VETO POWER AND DOUBLE VETO POWER
    On 20 Apr 2020    Views:30827
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.